The  Catholic  Church  and 
Modern  Chrisrianity 


BV 


ki:\     HKRXARD  J    OTTKN.  SJ 

rrofr««r>r  ..f  i'litl<>ft<>phy  In  St.  Louu  rni%-rr«ity 


SKCOND  RDITION 


Publi«b«l  by  B    IIKRDKK. 

FmuK-k  f..> ,...,, 

B.  IIKMtiKk  mASlM  ft  CO 


Nihil  obstat. 
Die  2.  Jan.  1907.  H.  Moeller,  S.  J. 

Praep.  Prov.  Missotir. 


Nihil  obstat. 
S.  Ludovici,  die  12  Jan.  1907.        F.  G.  Holweck, 

Censor  theol. 


Imprimatur. 
S.  Ludovici,  die  14.  Jan.  1907.    f  Joannes  J.  Glennon, 
Archiepiscopus  Sti.  Ludovici. 


Copyright,  1907,  by  Joseph  Gummersbach. 


CONTENTS 

PART   FIRST 
CHAPTERS  PAGE 

I.     Naturalism   the  Blight  of  the  Age.     .  9 
II.     Doctrinal  Development  —  Is  there  Prog- 
ress   IN    Religion? 27 

III.    Faith  and  Science 47 


PART  second 

I.    Origin  and  Effects  of  Religious  Preju- 
dice   67 

II.    The  Ancient  Church  and  Modern  Tree- 
thought 83 

III.  Toleration  and  Intolerance 100 

IV.  The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Bible.     .  121 
V.     Mary's  Place  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  .  143 

VI.    The  Catholic  Church  and  Education.     .   163 


PREFACE. 

In  the  following::;-  pages  an  attempt  is  made 
to  place  in  its  true  light  the  present  position 
of  the  Catholic  Church  in  reference  to  the 
various  other  religious  denominations.  This 
attempt  was  suggested  by  the  striking  fact, 
that,  even  in  this  age  of  universal  toleration, 
the  Christian  world  is  still  divided  into  two 
hostile  camps,  between  which  there  seems  to 
be  an  irreconcilable  opposition.  On  the  one 
side  stands  arrayed  in  solitary  grandeur  the 
old  historic  Church,  that  has  come  down  to 
us  across  the  ages  unchanged,  even  as  the 
name  which  she  bears ;  whilst  on  the  other  are 
gathered  the  various  Churches  which  have 
sprung  up  in  more  recent  times,  and  are 
classed  under  the  generic  term  of  Protestant- 
ism : —  Churches  that  are  indeed  at  variance 
among  themselves  as  regards  important  points 
of  dottrine,  yet  rally  around  a  common  stand- 
ard in  their  opposition  to  Catholic  views  and 
practices.  This  opposition  needs  explanation, 
5 


6  Preface 

for  it  shows  that  there  is  a  serious  misunder- 
standing on  the  part  of  our  non-CathoHc 
brethren,  whereby  they  are  led  to  an  almost 
constant  violation  of  that  charity  which  should 
distinguish  all  the  followers  of  Christ.  Hence 
•the  main  object  of  this  little  treatise  is  to 
point  out  the  reasonableness  of  the  Catholic 
position,  and  thus  to  promote  the  union  of  love, 
which  in  its  turn  may  lead  to  unity  of  faith. 

The  booklet  comprises  two  parts :  —  the  first 
part  deals  with  the  naturalizing  tendency  which 
is  so  strong  and  so  universal  in  the  religious 
world  to-day,  and  against  which  the  Catholic 
Church  takes  a  most  determined  stand;  whilst 
the  second  part  treats  of  the  more  important 
charges  which  Protestants  are  wont  to  urge 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  and  in  which  the 
aforesaid  opposition  finds  its  outward  expres- 
sion. 

In  reference  to  these  charges  it  may  be  well 
to  state,  that  it  is  not  the  writer's  direct  inten- 
tion to  prove  that  Protestants  are  in  the  wrong, 
but  rather  to  make  it  evident  that  Catholics 
are  in  the  right.  This  may  seem  to  be  a  dis- 
tinction without  a  difference;  yet  a  difference 
there  is,  and  one  that  offers  a  decided  advant- 
age, in  as  much  as  it  eliminates  the  necessity 


Preface  7 

of  saying  anything  that  might  give  offense  to 
our  separated  brethren.  Hence  the  treatment 
of  the  various  points  is  explanatory  rather 
than  controversial,  although,  owing  to  the  na- 
ture of  the  different  subjects,  controversy  could 
not  be  entirely  avoided. 

The  writer  believes  that  Protestant  opposi- 
tion to  Catholic  views  and  practices  is  largely 
due  to  deep-rooted  religious  prejudice,  and 
therefore  the  introductory  discussion  of  the 
second  part  deals  with  that  topic.  Following 
this,  the  more  important  points  at  issue  be- 
tween Protestants  and  Catholics  are  briefly  dis- 
cussed, both  in  their  historical  and  doctrinal 
aspect.  As  far  as  the  nature  of  the  subject 
permitted,  all  intricate  reasoning  has  been 
avoided,  so  that  the  general  reader  will  find 
the  various  discussions  well  within  his  reach. 


PART  FIRST. 


NATURALISM  THE  BLIGHT  OF  THE  AGE. 

The  age  we  live  in  is  frequently  styled  the 
Age  of  Progress.  And  such  it  is  in  many 
respects.  Whether  we  stay  at  home  or  go 
abroad,  retire  to  the  quiet  of  the  country  or 
mingle  with  the  rush  and  roar  of  our  city 
thoroughfares,  everywhere  and  at  all  times 
do  we,  come  face  to  face  with  the  spirit  of 
progress,  manifesting  itself  in  a  thousand 
different  forms.  There  is  progress  in  the 
arts  and  sciences;  progress  in  mechanical 
devices  and  industrial  methods;  progress  in 
all  that  makes  life  more  enjoyable  and  work 
more  lucrative; — the  spirit  of  progress  hov- 
ers over  land  and  sea,  everywhere  calling 
into  action  man's  latent  powers,  and  scat- 
tering broadcast  its  blessings  of  wealth  and 
comfort  and  ease. 

-9 


lo       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

Nor  is  this  spirit  "to  be  condemned  as 
wholly  evil.  It  may  indeed  rush  to  fatal 
extremes ;  it  may  be  misdirected ;  it  may 
proceed  from  wrong  motives;  yet  in  itself 
it  is  in  conformity  with  man's  nature,  and 
may  be  the  source  of  much  good.  When 
God  appointed  man  to  ''  fill  the  earth  and 
subdue  it,"  He  formulated  a  law  according 
to  which  man  must  ever  tend  to  the  more 
perfect.  This  law  is  at  the  root  of  all  true 
progress,  and  steadily  urges  on  the  race  to 
new  exertions  in  every  line  of  development. 
Where  one  generation  leaves  of¥  the  work  of 
improvement,  there  the  succeeding  one  takes 
it  up,  but  only  to  hand  it  over  in  a  more  ad- 
vanced condition  to  its  successor.  And  so 
progress  marches  on,  and  ever  will  march 
on,  through  the  ages,  until  the  last  page  of 
history  shall  have  been  written,  and  time  shall 
glide  into  eternity. 

Yet,  whilst  we  thus  look  with  a  certain 
well  founded  pride  upon  our  age,  there  are 
not  wanting  grave  causes  of  alarm.  Where 
there  are  strong  li^ts,  there  also  are  found 
deep  shadows.  Absorbing  devotion  to  ma- 
terial interests  must  of  its  very  nature  inter- 
fere  with   the   attention   due  to  our   spiritual 


Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age       ii 

requirements.  As  our  divine  Saviour  so 
pointedly  put  it :  "  No  one  can  serve  two 
masters  —  God  and  mammon.  For  either 
he  will  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other: 
or  he  will  sustain  the  one  and  despise  the 
other."  (Matt,  vi,  24).  He  may  indeed  at- 
tend to  both ;  but  serve  both,  he  cannot.  As 
matters  stand,  the  interests  of  mammon  are 
opposed  to  the  interests  of  God;  the  material 
contravenes  the  spiritual,  and  therefore  they 
cannot  be  co-ordinated.  Any  attempt  at  a 
divided  service  spells  failure,  and  invariably 
ends  in  the  subordination  of  the  spiritual  to 
the  material;  in  the  victory  of  mammon  over 
God. 

Hence  we  find  that  the  phenomenal  prog- 
ress along  material  lines,  in  which  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  men  are  so  completely  absorbed 
at  present,  is  accompanied  by  a  retrograde 
movement  in  religious  aspirations.  Men  still 
claim  to  be  religious;  but  for  the  most  part 
they  appreciate  only  a  religion  of  their  own 
making.  The  divine  element  of  Christianity 
is  made  to  yield  its  place  to  the  human;  the 
will  of  God  is  overshadowed  by  the  will  of 
man,  and  supernatural  religion  is  gradually 
supplanted  by  one  that  is  wholly  natural  in 


12       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

character.  Blinded  by  material  prosperity; 
intoxicated  with  the  achievements  of  science; 
wholly  wrapt  up  in  the  things  of  earth,  men 
are  fast  losing  all  sense  of  the  supernatural: 
because,  as  the  Apostle  says,  ''  the  sensual 
man  perceiveth  not  these  things  that  are  of 
the  spirit  of  God :  for  it  is  foolishness  to  him 
and  he  cannot  understand."  (I  Cor.  ii,  14). 
It  is  this  inability  to  rise  above  the  world  of 
the  senses,  resulting  for  the  most  part  from 
an  unrestrained  devotion  to  temporal  interests, 
that  forms  the  well-spring  of  naturalism  in 
religion  to-day.  Little  by  little  men  are  per- 
suading themselves,  if  not  in  theory,  at  least 
in  practice,  that  *'  this  world  is  man's  ultimate 
end;  that  beyond  this  earth  there  is  no  hope 
for  him  in  the  land  that  lies  beyond  the  shad- 
ows of  the  valley  of  death,  and  that  therefore 
he  may  cling  to  idolatries  of  clay,  and  linger 
as  long  as  he  can  near  cool  fountains  in  the 
sensuous  shade,  and  when  these  cloy,  end  all 
with  the  bodkin's  edge."  This  is  naturalism 
in  its  final  stage  of  development,  and  as  such, 
let  us  hope,  it  is  not  yet  so  common  among 
men  who  still  glory  in  the  sacred  name  of 
Christian ;  but  besides  this  extreme  phase, 
there  is  a  vast  variety  of  lighter  shades,  all 


Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age       13 

constantly  deepening  into  that  abysmal  gloom, 
where  finally  sight  is  lost  of  man's  glorious 
destiny  in  the  house  of  God  his  Father :  — 
into  that  gloom  where  no  virtue  can  blossom 
and  ripen  into  golden  fruitage,  except  such 
as  belong  entirely  to  the  natural  order ;  where 
faith  can  strike  no  root;  where  hope  can  find 
no  anchorage,  and  where  divine  charity  is 
smothered  in  the  fetid  atmosphere  of  sensuous 
indulgence.  This  last  phase  of  naturalism 
we  are  gradually  approaching,  and  when  we 
shall  have  reached  it,  there  will  fall  upon  the 
world  a  blight  such  as  it  has  not  known  since 
the  darkness  of  Paganism  fled  before  the  dawn 
of  the  first  Christian  Easter  Morning. 

That  this  naturalizing  tendency  is  subsersive 
of  the  most  fundamental  teaching  of  Chris- 
tianity is  manifest  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case.  For  if  Christianity  stands  for  any- 
thing, and  is  not  a  mere  name,  a  shadow 
without  a  substance,  it  stands  for  a  religion 
that  is  in  its  essence  and  aims  purely  super- 
natural. It  proposes  tO'  its  adherents  an  end 
that  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  their  natural 
powers;  it  offers  for  the  attainment  of  that 
end  means  which  nature  cannot  provide,  and  it 
requires  the  practice  of  virtues  for  which  man, 


14       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

left  to  himself,  has  no  aptitude.  Hence  whoso 
would  introduce  a  natural  religion,  were  it 
ever  so  sublime,  must  ipso  facto  reject  Chris- 
tianity, and  may  no  longer  call  himself  a 
Christian. 

If  you  will,  there  is  a  natural  element  in 
Christianity,  even  as  there  was  a  human  na- 
ture in  Christ ;  but  this  is  pervaded  by  the 
supernatural  spirit  within,  and  depends  upon 
the  same  for  all  that  gives  it  grace  of  form 
and  beauty  of  feature.  Christianity  is  indeed 
in  the  world,  but  it  is  not  of  the  world,  even 
as  Christ's  kingdom  also  was  not  of  the  world. 
It  was  meant  to  regenerate  society ;  to  change 
the  earth,  once  accurse'd  of  its  Maker,  into  a 
paradise  of  delight;  yet  to  accomplish  this, 
its  Divine  Founder  gave  it  no  other  means 
than  those  which  He  Himself  made  use  of, 
when  He  came  down  from  heaven  to  save  that 
which  was  lost.  "  As  the  Father  hath  sent 
me,"  he  said  to  His  Apostles,  "  I  also  send 
you.  (John  xx,  20).  Go  ye  into  the  whole 
world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved :  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  con- 
demned." (Mark,  xvi,  15,  16).  The  Saviour's 
mission  was  not  to  promote  the  cultivation  of 


Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age       15 

the  arts  and  sciences;  to  suggest  new  in- 
dustries; to  open  up  avenues  to  wealth  and 
luxury;  to  establish  philanthropic  associations 
and  social  clubs ;  but  to  show  men  the  way  to 
heaven  by  teaching  them  how  to  lead  lives  of 
faith  and  hope  and  charity.  The  keynote  of 
all  His  teachings  was :  "  Seek  ye  first  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  His  justice,  and  all  these 
things,"  that  is,  whatever  is  needful  for  your 
bodily  well-being,  "  shall  be  added  unto  you." 
(Matt,  vi,  33).  He  did  not  discourage  thrift 
and  industry;  He  did  not  put  a  ban  upon  the 
cultivation  of  the  arts  and  sciences ;  He  did 
not  condemn  reasonable  social  enjoyments: 
but  He  made  it  clearly  understood,  that  all 
these  things  must  be  subordinated  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 
"  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  .  .  . 
What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the  whole 
world,  but  suffer  the  loss  of  his  immortal 
soul?"     (Matt,  xvi,  26). 

With  this  object  in  view.  He  established, 
not  a  commonwealth  for  which  He  enacted 
wise  laws,  but  a  Church  to  which  He  gave 
authority  to  teach  supernatural  truths,  and  to 
administer  the  sacraments  unto  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  all  for  whom  He  poured  out  His  heart's 


i6       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

best  blood.  Upon  that  Church  He  conferred 
His  own  divine  authority,  for  He  said :  "  He 
that  heareth  you,  heareth  me ;  and  he  that 
despiseth  you  despiseth  me."  To  it  He  con- 
ceded His  own  powers  as  Saviour  of  mankind, 
saying- :  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose 
sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them ; 
and  whose  sins  you  shall  retain,  they  are  re- 
tained." (John  XX,  22,  27,).  In  it  He  would 
abide  forever,  not  only  as  a  sure  guide  to  truth, 
but  as  a  perennial  source  of  sanctification,  as 
He  clearly  indicated  when  He  said :  "  Little 
children,  I  will  not  leave  you  orphans." 
"  Come  to  me  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  bur- 
dened, and  I  will  refresh  you."  "  He  that 
eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath 
life  everlasting,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  on  the 
last  day."     (John  vi,  57). 

Hence  the  believing-  Christian,  according  to 
Christ's  clearly  expressed  intention,  lives  in  a 
divine  atmosphere  from  his  birth  even  till  his 
death.  Scarcely  has  the  child  of  Christian 
parents  been  ushered  into  existence,  when  its 
infant  soul  is  regenerated  by  the  cleansing 
laver  of  Baptism  in  a  second  and  spiritual 
birth,  whereby  it  is  sealed  with  the  ineffaceable 
character  of  Christian,  to  become,  as  the  Fath- 


Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age       17 

ers  of  the  early  Church  were  wont  to  express 
it,  another  Christ.  A  few  years  of  uncon- 
scious existence  ghde  swiftly  by,  and  then 
reason  unfolds  its  wondrous  powers.  Yet  be- 
fore the  mind  reaches  out  in  conscious  thought 
to  the  surrounding  world,  its  eyes  have  been 
opened  through  a  mother's  influence  to  the 
light  of  God's  love,  even  as  the  eyes  of  the 
body  rest  in  childish  admiration  upon  the 
splendors  of  the  earthly  sun.  In  virtue  of 
this  influence,  the  child  learns  without  effort  to 
fold  his  hands  in  prayer,  and  with  pure  and 
innocent  lips  he  lisps  the  sweet  names  of  Jesus 
and  Mary.  As  day  follows  day,  consciousness 
fully  awakens,  and  then  life's  struggles  be- 
gin ;  for  the  perils  of  the  world  encompass 
every  man's  path  through  life.  But  lo,  Christ 
has  made  provision  against  these  dangers. 
Through  the  sacrament  of  Confirmation  He 
bestows  the  Unction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  there- 
by rendering  the  soul  strong  and  brave  in  the 
broad  arena  of  Christian  warfare.  In  that 
warfare  there  is  many  a  sharp  encounter,  many 
a  fierce  conflict ;  for  ''  the  wrestling  is  not  alone 
against  flesh  and  blood;  but  against  princi- 
palities, against  the  rulers  of  the  world  of  this 
darkness,  against  the  spirit  of  wickedness  in 


i8       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

high  places."  Yet  if  unhappily  the  Christian 
warrior  succumbs,  his  God  awaits  him  in  the 
tribunal  of  mercy,  in  the  sacrament  of  Penace, 
where  consecrated  ministers,  not  only  by  pow- 
ers divine  heal  the  unsightly  wounds  inflicted 
by  sin,  but  also  infuse  into  the  soul  fresh 
courage  for  future  combats.  Nay,  the  same 
God  invites  him  to  a  heavenly  banquet,  where 
the  God-Man  Christ  becomes  the  very  food  of 
his  soul,  and  thus  endues  him  with  his  own 
strength  and  endurance.  Thus  is  he  con- 
stantly upheld  by  a  power  from  on  high,  until 
his  course  be  run ;  and  then  at  the  last  mo- 
ment, when  kindred  and  friends  stand  helpless 
at  his  side,  the  same  loving  Providence  en- 
folds him  in  its  protecting  arms,  anointing  his 
body  with  the  Oil  of  the  Infirm,  refreshing 
his  soul  with  the  Viaticum  of  Christ's  Body 
and  Blood,  and  thus  comforted  and  strength- 
ened and  shielded  from  harm,  leads  him  into 
the  presence  of  his  Maker. 

Hence  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,  the 
true  Christian  necessarily  leads  a  supernatural 
life,  being  ever  in  vital  union  with  Christ,  even 
as  the  branches  that  bear  the  empurpled  grape 
are  in  vital  union  with  the  vine,  whence  they 
draw  their  life-giving  sap.     If,  therefore,  we 


Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age       19 

study  the  Christian  reHg-ion  as  it  was  estab- 
Hshed  by  Christ,  we  are  forced  to  say  that  it 
IS  purely  supernatural  in  character. 

Furthermore,  if  we  cast  but  a  cursory  glance 
at  the  origin  and  rapid  spread  of  Christianity, 
we  shall  find  that  it  was  precisely  the  emphasis 
which  Christ  placed  upon  the  supernatural  that 
made  the  world  Christian.  He  proposed  Him- 
self to  young  and  old  as  a  model,  an  ideal, 
compelling  by  His  strong  and  sublime  per- 
sonality both  their  love  and  imitation ;  yet  He 
always  remained  on  a  supernatural  plane,  lift- 
ing up  earth  to  heaven  rather  than  bringing 
down  heaven  to  earth.  *'  Be  ye  holy  as  I  am 
holy,"  was  the  battle  cry  that  went  forth  from 
the  obscure  country  of  Judea,  and  gathered 
around  the  Standard  of  the  Cross  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  all  nations.  From  the  rnoment 
that  his  creative  spirit,  all  radiant  with  the 
light  of  heaven,  moved  over  the  polluted  wat- 
ers of  pagan  corruption,  there  sprang  up  on  all 
sides  those  rare  flowers  of  Christian  holiness 
which  shine  like  gems  upon  every  page  of 
modern  history;  and  it  was  because  of  the 
same  spirit,  working  with  divine  efficacy  in 
the  hearts  of  countless  men  and  women,  that 
Christian  society  rose  from  its  very  beginning 


20       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

so  far  superior  to  that  of  the  ancient  world. 
Thus  ''  the  purest  among  the  strong,  and  the 
strongest  among  the  pure,  Christ  Hfted  with 
His  wounded  hands  empires  from  their  hinges, 
and  changed  the  course  of  the  stream  of 
ages." 

It  has  been  very  aptly  said,  that  Christ  re- 
made the  world  to  His  own  image  and  like- 
ness, and  so  regenerated  it.  As  an  ideal  at 
once  human  and  divine,  He  entered  into  the 
very  hearts  and  souls  of  men,  and  created  in 
them  an  all  pervading  desire  to  rise  above  the 
things  of  sense,  and  to  make  their  lives  god- 
like. Scarcely  had  He  risen  in  triumph  from 
the  grave,  when  love  awoke  upon  His  empty 
tomb,  and  inspired  whole  nations  to  put  into 
practice  His  sublime  teaching,  which  fell  like 
refreshing  dew  upon  the  arid  wastes  of  pagan 
selfishness.  The  Spirit  of  God  went  forth  and 
renewed  the  face  of  the  earth.  Men,  who 
of  the  earth  had  become  earthly,  lifted  up 
their  eyes  to  heaven,  and  beheld  in  glorious 
vision  the  City  of  Peace,  which  was  to  be  their 
home,  if  they  would  but  dare  to  fight  the  good 
fight  and  stretch  forth  their  hand  to  the  eter- 
nal crown  of  justice.  Firmly  established  in 
the  conscious  possession  of  truth,  through  the 


Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age       21 

teaching  of  Christ's  infallible  Church,  they 
gathered  strength  from  their  Saviour's  con- 
soling words :  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  His  justice,  and  all  else  shall  be  added 
unto  you ;  and  in  that  strength  they  found 
courage  to  follow  the  footsteps  of  Him  whose 
earthly  career  ended  upon  the  cross. 

Then  sprang  into  existence  the  Christian 
home,  modeled  upon  the  little  home  at  Naza- 
reth, where  Christ  Himself  was  the  guardian 
spirit  of  the  hearthstone.  From  that  home 
went  forth  men  and  women  all  radiant  with 
the  light  of  godlike  purity  and  possessed  of 
hearts  that  pulsated  with  a  love  of  God  and 
neighbor  all  but  divine.  Thus  the  Gospel  of 
peace  brought  sunshine  into  a  world  that  had 
for  ages  been  encompassed  by  the  shadows  of 
death.  Churches  and  schools  and  charitable 
institutions  arose  everywhere  as  so  many 
manifestations  of  the  spirit  of  Christ,  slowly 
regenerating  the  world  by  fashioning  it  into 
His  own  image  and  likeness.  Human  nature, 
indeed,  remained  what  it  had  ever  been,  weak, 
inconstant,  fickle,  inclined  to  evil ;  but  from 
the  Church,  which  Christ  had  built  upon  the 
mountain  top,  there  flowed  without  ceasing  a 
sevenfold  stream  of   srrace,  which  lifted  men 


22,       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

and  women  above  the  weaknesses  of  their 
fallen  nature,  and  enabled  them  to  enjoy  the 
sweets  of  life,  end  endure  its  ills,  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  perfect  in  themselves  evermore 
the  image  of  the  Godhead. 

And  as  it  was  in  the  beginning,  so  it  has 
been  throughout  the  Christian  past,  so  it  is 
even  now  wherever  the  religion  of  Christ  is 
looked  upon,  not  merely  as  a  beautiful  dream, 
a  poetic  fiction,  but  as  a  practical  rule  of  life, 
such  as  the  God-Man  Himself  has  ordained  it 
for  all  times.  It  is  a  religion  that  receives 
man  with  the  love  of  a  mother  at  his  birth ; 
accompanies  him  as  a  guardian  spirit  along 
all  the  devious  paths  of  life,  and  enables  him 
to  look  with  steady  eye  into  the  bright  ef- 
fulgence of  eternity  at  the  moment  of  death. 
And  this  is  the  religion  which  the  naturalizing 
tendency,  so  strong  and  widespread  in  the 
modern  world,  aims  at  abolishing.  Men  who 
of  the  earth  have  become  earthly,  yet  glory- 
ing still  in  the  name  of  Christian,  dare  to  lay 
their  desecrating  hands  upon  all  that  is  most 
holy  in  the  religion  established  by  Christ 
The  life-giving  union,  which  Christ  established 
between  Himself  and  His  followers,  they  en- 
deavor  to   dissolve   by   eliminating    from   the 


Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age       23 

lives  of  men  all  that  bears  a  supernatural 
character.  They  will  no  longer  allow  the  little 
ones  to  come  to  the  Saviour  of  mankind  and 
receive  from  Him  the  blessing  of  supernatural 
faith,  but  by  a  system  of  purely  secular  educa- 
tion start  them  upon  a  course  of  worldly  wis- 
dom that  limits  their  aspirations  to  earthly  en- 
joyments. Prayer  they  regard  as  superfluous, 
and  divine  worship  they  set  down  as  an  anach- 
ronism that  should  have  disappeared  with  the 
fancied  darkness  of  the  Middle  Ages.  They 
degrade  the  sacramental  union,  wherein  ac- 
cording to  Christ's  intention  man  and  woman 
are  indissolubly  united,  to  a  merely  civil  con- 
tract, which  may  be  broken  almost  at  will,  as 
suggested  by  caprice  or  dictated  by  passion. 
They  worship  success  as  an  idol,  and  point  to 
worldly  prosperity  as  a  criterion  of  virtue. 
Christ,  by  emphasizing  the  divine  element  of 
Christianity,  made  the  world  Christian;  they, 
by  insisting  upon  what  is  purely  natural,  will 
end  by  making  it  pagan.  And  still  these  men 
call  themselves  Christians,  progressive  Chris- 
tians, enlightened  followers  of  Christ.  What 
a  byword  they  make  of  so  sacred  a  name ! 
They  may  call  themselves  Christians,  but  their 
Christianity  is  without  Christ;  they  may  style 


24       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

themselves  progressive,  but  their  progress  is 
retrograde,  and  its  final  term  is  paganism. 

It  is  against  this  paganizing  movement  that, 
the  Catholic  Church  takes  her  stand ;  it  is 
against  this  misnamed  progress  that  she  lifts 
up  her  voice.  Founded  to  continue  the  divine 
mission  of  Christ  upon  earth,  it  is  the  very  end 
and  object  of  her  existence  to  preserve  and 
keep  alive  the  supernatural  element  of  Chris- 
tianity. Rationalists  may  sneer  at  her  con- 
servatism; the  sects  may  call  her  narrow- 
minded  ;  it  matters  not :  to  one  and  all  she 
gives  the  same  answer :  ''  For  this  was  I  born, 
and  for  this  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I 
should  give  testimony  of  the  truth;  and  this 
is  the  truth,  that  the  Christian  religion  is  in 
all  its  parts  supernatural,  and  therefore  not 
susceptible  of  modifications  devised  by  human 
wisdom.  What  Christ  made  it  in  the  begin- 
ning, that  must  it  remain  forever :  super- 
natural in  the  faith  which  it  exacts  of  its  ad- 
herents; supernatural  in  the  end  w^hich  it  pro- 
poses as  man's  destiny ;  supernatural  in  the 
means  which  it  offers  for  the  attainment  of 
that  end." 

And  in  this  protest  the  Catholic  Church 
stands    practically    alone.     Fler    voice    is    the 


Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age       25 

voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness.  Among 
the  hundreds  of  so-called  Christian  Churches, 
there  is  not  one  that  does  not  bend  before 
the  storm  of  modern  Rationalism.  Beyond  the 
pale  of  the  Catholic  Church  the  religious  world 
is  as  protean  in  its  aspect  as  in  the  ocean's 
surface,  changing  its  form  with  every  passing, 
breeze.  Doctrine  after  doctrine  is  modified, 
changed,  abandoned ;  and  in  each  modification, 
in  every  change,  the  human  element  encroaches 
upon  the  divine ;  the  natural  supplants  the 
supernatural,  until  finally  nothing  remains  but 
a  religion  that  is  entirely  cf  man's  making. 

You  may  perhaps  be  inclined  to  call  this 
statement  harsh,  unland,  uncalled  for ;  but  it 
is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other :  for  truth 
is  truth  till  the  end  of  reckoning,  and  in  a 
matter  of  such  vital  importance  as  this  neces- 
sarily is,  the  truth  must  be  proclaimed  from 
the  housetops.  Examine  into  the  conditions 
of  things  for  yourselves :  study  the  religion  es- 
tablished by  Christ ;  investigate  the  teaching 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  such  as  it  is  to-day, 
and  such  as  it  has  ever  been  throughout  the 
centuries  that  are  past ;  compare  the  one  with 
the  other;  place  the  result  of  your  inquiry  in 
the   balance   with   the   variegated    innovations 


26       Naturalism  the  Blight  of  the  Age 

that  disfigure  all  Protestant  Churches,  and  you 
will  be  convinced  that  I  am  speaking  the  truth 
and  nothing  but  the  truth. 

Protestants  may  love  their  religion,  and  I 
think  well  of  them  because  of  that  love;  for 
wherever  the  heart  clings  to  religious  senti- 
ments, though  they  be  misplaced,  there  still 
glimmers  a  spark  of  the  divine  fire  which 
Christ  came  to  enkindle  upon  earth :  they  may 
be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  their  religion,  and 
I  respect  them,  if  they  have  the  courage  of 
their  convictions ;  for  to  err  is  human,  and 
where  convictions  are  sincere,  though  they  rest 
unconsciously  upon  a  false  foundation,  there 
the  dignity  of  human  nature  remains  unim- 
paired ;  but  this  loving  devotion  and  sincere 
conviction  of  individuals  can  do  nothing  to- 
wards redeeming  the  erroneous  religious  sys- 
tem whereof  such  persons  are  the  unfortunate 
victims.  Whatsoever  religious  institution  pro- 
fesses to  be  the  Church  of  Christ,  must  hold 
fast  to  the  faith  of  Christ;  must  be  the  same 
to-day  as  it  was  yesterday;  must  stand  un- 
moved amid  the  storms  and  tempests  of  the 
ages ;  for  Christ  built  His  church  upon  a  rock, 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 


\ 


II. 

DOCTRINAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

In  the  preceding  discussion  I  endeavored  to 
make  it  clear  that  the  naturalizing  tendency,  so 
strong  and  so  universal  in  the  religious  world 
to-day,  is  of  its  very  nature  subversive  of  the 
religion  established  by  Christ.  For  the  most 
fundamental  teaching  of  that  religion  is  that 
man  was  elevated  to  a  supernatural  state,  and 
that  therefore  man's  destiny  lies  beyond  the 
scope  of  nature,  and  can  be  attained  only  by 
the  use  of  means  wholly  supernatural  in  char- 
acter. Consequently,  whoso  attempts  to  substi- 
tute the  practice  of  merely  natural  virtue  for  a 
life  of  supernatural  faith,  breaks  completely 
with  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  returns  in  effect 
to  the  ideals  of  Paganism.  He  may  still  glory 
in  the  name  of  Christian,  but  he  rejects  the 
sublime  reality  for  which  that  name  has  ever 
stood  throughout  the  Christian  past. 

To  this  conclusion  the  modern  world  ob- 
jects on  the  score  that  in  religion  no  less  than 
27 


28  Doctrinal  Development 

in  science,  there  must  be  progress  and  de- 
velopment. As  the  race  advances  in  scientific 
knowledge,  so  also  must  it  advance  in  the  per- 
ception and  interpretation  of  religious  truths, 
and  bring  these  truths  into  ever  more  perfect 
accord  with  scientific  discoveries.  Hence  it 
may  well  happen,  they  say,  that  truths,  which 
in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity  were  believed 
to  lie  outside  the  bounds  of  nature,  are  really 
contained  wdthin  the  same,  as  understood  by 
the  enlightened  spirit  of  modern  times.  What 
our  forefathers  interpreted  in  a  supernatural 
sense,  to  that  we  may  now  assign  a  natural 
meaning,  at  least  when  such  meaning  is  more 
in  harmony  with  prevailing  scientific  theories. 
This  is  a  very  specious  objection,  and  has 
wrought  untold  mischief  in  the  lives  of  per- 
sons who,  above  all  else,  wish  to  be  consid- 
ered enlightened.  It  will  be  timely,  therefore, 
to  place  this  theory  of  doctrinal  development 
in  its  true  light,  as  we  shall  endeavor  to  do 
in  the  present  discussion 

First,  then,  is  there  such,  a  thing  as  doctri- 
nal development,  or  progress  in  religion  ? 
There  undoubtedly  is ;  for  the  Church  of 
Christ  is  not  something  dead  or  inert,  but  a 
living  organism,  possessed  of  an  internal  prin- 


Doctrinal  Development  29 

ciple  of  activity.  She  is,  indeed,  continuous 
and  indefectible;  yet  her  continuity  and  in- 
defectibility  is  not  that  "  of  the  dead  letter  of 
a  book,  or  of  a  lifeless  statue,  but  a  living 
organic  being,  animated  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Hence  Christ  Himself  compares  His  Church 
to  "a  grain  of  mustard  seed :  which  when  it 
is  sown  in  the  earth,  is  less  than  all  the  seeds 
that  are  in  the  earth :  and  when  it  is  sown,  it 
groweth  up,  and  becometh  greater  than  all 
herbs,  and  shooteth  out  great  branches,  so  that 
the  birds  of  the  air  may  dwell  under  the 
shadow  thereof."  (Mark  iv,  31,  32).  Each 
succeeding  age,  as  it  rolls  by,  is  fraught  with 
new  dangers  to  the  faith ;  every  generation  of 
men,  as  it  peoples  the  earth,  has  its  own  p^e- 
culiar  needs,  and  these  Christ  provided  for  by 
breathing  into  His  Church  a  living  spirit, 
which  of  its  own  innate  activity  should  be 
capable  of  meeting  the  exigencies  of  every  age 
and  satisfying  the  w^ants  of  all  generations. 

Hence  as  the  Church,  according  to  the  in- 
tention of  her  Divine  Founder,  contains  within 
herself  an  internal  principle  of  life,  she  must 
be  capable  of  development,  not  only  in  re- 
spect to  her  devotional  practices,  but  also  as 
regards     her     doctrinal     teaching.     Yet    that 


30  Doctrinal  Development 

development  must  be  in  the  form  of  growth, 
as  it  is  in  all  living  organic  beings.  It  cannot 
imply  any  essential  change,  but  must  of  neces- 
sity consist  in  a  gradual  unfolding  of  what  w^as 
possessed  from  the  beginning.  This  was  well 
expressed  by  the  English  Catholic  Bishops 
in  their  joint  Pastoral  on  *'  Liberal  Catholi- 
cism." Their  words  are :  "  Not  only  do  the 
faithful  grow  in  the  Faith,  but  faith  itself  may 
be  said  to  grow  as  a  child  grows  in  its  own 
form  and  character,  or  as  a  tree  in  its  own 
unmistakable  properties."  The  same  idea  was 
expressed  by  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins,  fifteen 
hundred  years  ago.  In  his  book,  entitled  Com- 
monitorium,  he  writes :  "  It  is  the  property  of 
progress  that  a  thing  be  developed  in  itself; 
it  is  the  property  of  change  that  a  thing  be 
altered  from  what  it  was  to  something  else." 
And  to  the  question,  "  Whether  there  shall  be 
no  progress  of  religion  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,"  he  replies :  "  Certainly,  let  there  be 
progress,  and  as  much  as  may  be,  but  so  that 
there  be  really  progress  in  the  faith,  not  an 
alteration  of  it."      (n.  23  and  37). 

In  this  matter,  therefore,  we  must  first  of 
all  guard  against  false  inferences,  which  might 
easily    be    drawn    from   the   illustrations   just 


Doctrinal  Development  31 

given.  In  the  material  world  around  us,  the 
growth  of  living  organisms  depends  upon  the 
assimilation  of  material  received  from  with- 
out. Thus  a  child  cannot  grow  into  a  man 
except  by  assimilating  the  food  which  sustains 
its  life ;  nor  can  a  tender  shoot  develop  into  a 
tree  save  by  transforming  into  Its  own  sub- 
stance the  elements  breathed  in  from  the  at- 
mosphere, or  absorbed  from  the  soil.  It  is  a 
growth  that  is  conditioned  by  the  supply  of 
extraneous  material.  No  such  assimilation  or 
transformation  takes  place  in  doctrinal  growth. 
Whatever  doctrine  may  in  course  of  time  be 
proposed  to  the  explicit  belief  of  the  faithful, 
must  in  its  entirety  have  been  contained  in  the 
original  Deposit  of  Faith,  as  it  was  bequeathed 
to  the  world  by  Christ  through  His  Apostles. 
At  the  death  of  St.  John,  who  was  the  last 
surviving  Apostle,  that  Deposit  was  complete, 
and  to  it  nothing  shall  ever  be  added,  even  by 
way  of  a  new  revelation.  Private  revelations, 
granted  to  single  individuals,  may  be  vouch- 
safed from  time  to  time  for  God's  own  wise 
purposes ;  but  not  such  as  bear  a  public  char- 
acter, and  are  proposed  to  the  acceptance  of 
the  faithful  in  general. 

The   truth   of   this   statement,   namelv,   that 


32  Doctrinal  Development 

to  the  original  Deposit  of  Faith  nothing  is  to 
be  added  in  course  of  time,  is  quite  manifest 
from  our  Lord's  own  teaching.  Thus,  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  St.  John,  He  says  to  His 
Apostles :  "  All  things  whatsoever  I  have 
heard  of  my  Father,  I  have  made  known  to 
you."  (John  xv,  15).  And  again:  "But 
the  Paraclete,  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Fa- 
ther will  send  in  my  name,  he  will  teach  you 
all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  mind, 
whatsoever  I  shall  have  said  to  you."  (John 
xiv,  26).  And  finally,  in  the  commission 
which  He  gave  His  Apostles  to  teach  all  na- 
tions. He  said :  "  Going  therefore,  teach  ye 
all  nations ;  .  .  .  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you : 
and  behold  I  am  with  you  all  days,  even  to 
the  consummation  of  the  world."  (Mark, 
xxviii,  19,  20).  The  divine  message  which  He 
had  brought  down  from  heaven,  He  entrusted 
in  its  entirety  to  His  Apostles,  and  that  mes- 
sage was  to  be  for  all  times  the  sacred  De- 
posit of  Faith  to  which  nothing  might  be 
added. 

Hence,  also,  we  find  that  the  Apostles  ex- 
horted the  faithful  not  to  look  for  a  new 
revelation,  but  to  persevere  in  the  faith  which 


Doctrinal  Development  33 

they  had  received.  Thus  St.  Paul,  writing  to 
Timothy,  says  very  pointedly :  "  Hold  the 
form  of  sound  words,  which  thou  hast  heard 
from  me  in  faith,  and  in  the  love  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus.  Keep  the  good  things  com- 
mitted to  thy  trust  by  the  Holy  Ghost  who 
dwelleth  in  us."  (H  Tim.  iii).  And  to  the 
Corinthians  he  writes :  "  Other  foundation  to 
man  can  lay,  but  that  which  is  laid ;  which  is 
Christ  Jesus."  (I  Cor.  iii,  11).  Finally,  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  he  goes  so  far  as 
to  say  :  "Though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven, 
preach  a  gospel  to  you  besides  that  which  you 
have  received,  let  him  be  anathema."  (Gal. 
i,  8). 

Moreover,  as  there  can  be  no  addition  from 
without,  whereby  the  Deposit  of  Faith  might 
be  increased,  so  neither  can  there  be  any  re- 
jection from  within,  whereby  it  might  be  di- 
minished. In  living  organisms  that  belong  to 
the  physical  order,  there  is  a  constant  rejec- 
tion of  elements  that  have  served  their  pur- 
pose ;  but  in  the  living  Church,  as  a  system 
of  supernatural  religion,  such  rejection  is  im- 
possible. What  was  a  revealed  truth  once, 
must  remain  a  revealed  truth  forever;  and  if 
it  was  of  use  at  one  time,  it  must  be  of  use 


34  Doctrinal  Development 

at  all  times.  Hence  Christ  commanded  His 
Apostles  and  their  successors  to  teach  all  truth 
to  all  nations,  from  His  own  day  even  to  the 
consummation  of  the  world. 

This  same  view,  both  as  regards  addition 
to,  and  subtraction  from,  the  Deposit  of  Faith, 
has  been  held  by  the  Church  even  from  the 
earliest  times,  as  is  clearly  indicated  in  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  written  at  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century.  The  author  says: 
"  This  is  the  rule  of  true  enlightenment :  Keep 
what  thou  hast  received,  neither  adding  there- 
unto, nor  taking  away  anything."  So  also 
St.  Vincent  of  Lerins,  who  wrote  towards  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century,  puts  this  point  very 
clearly,  when  he  says :  "  The  Church  of  Christ, 
being  a  vigilant  and  careful  guardian  of  the 
doctrines  committed  to  her,  makes  no  change 
in  these  at  any  time,  subtracts  nothing,  adds 
nothing,  does  not  curtail  what  is  essential,  nor 
tack  on  what  is  not  needed.  She  does  not  let 
slip  what  is  her  own,  she  does  not  pilfer  what 
is  another's ;  her  whole  endeaver,  her  one  aim 
by  her  treatment  of  all  questions,  at  once  faith- 
ful and  wise,  is  to  bring  out  into  clearness 
what  was  once  vague  and  incomplete,  to 
strengthen  and  secure  what  is  already  devel- 


Doctrinal  Development  35 

oped  and  distinct,  to  keep  watch  and  ward  over 
doctrines  already  established  and  defined." 
(Com.  n.  23). 

In  this  passage  the  Saint  indicates  what  he 
conceives,  and  what  history  testifies  to  be  the 
nature  and  aim  of  doctrmal  development  in 
the  Church  of  Christ.  In  its  last  analysis 
said  development  is  but  an  authorative  declara- 
tion and  clear  definition  of  revealed  truths  as 
demanded  by  the  exigencies  of  the  times ; 
which  truths,  however,  were  implicitly  con- 
tained in  what  was  taught  from  the  beginning. 
Studying  the  matter  in  the  light  of  history, 
we  find  the  following  facts  clearly  delineated. 
When  the  Gospel  was  first  announced  to  the 
world,  only  the  more  essential  truths  that  stood 
out  prominently  were  clearly  apprehended  by 
converts  to  the  faith ;  whilst  others  not  so  es- 
sential, though  contained  in  the  Gospel  as 
preached,  escaped  general  notice.  As  a  re- 
sult, the  first  class  of  truths  were  believed 
explicitly,  that  is,  their  import  being  under- 
stood, they  were  formally  accepted  and  as- 
sented to  by  the  faithful ;  whilst  the  second 
class  were  believed  only  implicitly,  that  is,  the 
faithful  accepted  on  the  authority  of  God's 
word  whatever  might  be  contained  in  the  Gos- 


36  Doctrinal  Development 

pel  message,  though  they  did  not  as  yet  have 
a  comprehensive  knowledge  of  what  was  con- 
tained therein.  The  motive  and  ground  of 
their  belief  was  God's  infallible  word,  and  that 
word  vouched  as  well  for  truths  that  were 
still  hidden  from  view,  as  for  those  others 
that  stood  out  clearly  in  the  full  light  of  revela- 
tion. Thus  it  naturally  happened  that  at  first 
there  appeared  but  a  limited  number  of  doc- 
trines which  were  evidently  of  faith,  whilst 
many  others  needed  a  fuller  and  clearer  ex- 
position before  they  could  be  proposed  for 
explicit  and  formal  acceptance,  and  in  this 
sense  might  be  said  to  be  not  of  faith. 

This  condition  of  things  lasted  so  long  as 
there  was  little  time  or  opportunity  of  study- 
ing the  Gospel  message  closely ;  but  as  soon 
as  that  study  began,  discussions  arose  and 
.opinions  were  formed  as  to  what  doctrines 
were  contained  in  the  Gospel,  besides  those 
which  had  been  apprehended  as  evident  from 
the  first.  Whilst  these  discussions  were  going 
on  among  the  faithful,  the  highest  teaching 
authority  of  the  Church  preserved  as  it  were 
a  neutral  attitude,  neither  condemning  the  one 
opinion  nor  approving  the  other,  simply  be- 
cause there  seemed  to  be  no  immediate  call 


Doctrinal  Development  37 

for  an  authoritative  statement  concerning  the 
matter  in  question.  This  may  be  called  the 
initial  stage  of  doctrinal  development.  Truths 
that  had  till  then  escaped  all  notice  were,  under 
new  extrinsic  conditions,  adverted  to,  and  by 
reason  of  the  discussions  carried  on,  slowly 
assumed  definite  form  in  the  minds  of  the 
faithful,  though  they  were  not  as  yet  made 
perfectly  clear  by  an  authoritative  decision  of 
the  teaching  Church. 

The  next  step  was  taken  when  the  Church 
herself,  in  virtue  of  the  teaching  office  en- 
trusted to  her  by  her  Divine  Founder,  took 
cognizance  of  the  matter;  either  tacitly  con- 
firming a  doctrine  by  allowing  it  to  be  taught 
by  her  theologians  as  being  of  faith,  or  else 
directly  removing  all  doubt  by  a  formal  defini- 
tion, which  was  given  sometimes  by  a  general 
council  presided  over  by  the  Pope,  and  at 
others  it  was  rendered  by  the  Pope  himself, 
acting  in  his  capacity  as  supreme  teacher  of 
all  the  faithful.  When  this  approval,  either 
tacit  or  formal,  had  once  been  given,  the  mat- 
ter was  settled  forever.  The  doctrine  which 
till  then,  though  really  revealed  by  God,  had 
for  want  of  an  authoritative  statement  been 
doubtful,  as  far  as  the  faithful  were  concerned. 


38  Doctrinal  Development 

was  henceforth  to  be  formally  accepted  and 
explicitly  believed  by  all. 

As  a  concrete  example,  we  may  take  the 
doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary.  It  was  not  until  1854, 
when  this  doctrine  was  solemnly  defined  by 
Pius  IX^  that  the  faithful  were  obliged  to  be- 
lieve explicitly  that  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God, 
had  been  preserved  from  all  stain  of  original 
sin.  The  doctrine  itself  had  been  revealed 
by  God,  yet  its  revelation  was  not  so  evident 
that  it  removed  all  doubt  from  the  minds  of 
those  who  studied  the  Gospel  message.  In 
the  first  promise  of  a  Redeemer,  which  God 
made  to  Adam  and  Eve  immediately  after  their 
fall,  He  stated  that  He  would  put  enmity  be- 
tween the  Mother  of  the  Redeemer  and  satan, 
(Gen.  iii,  15),  and  as  that  enmity  was  not 
restricted  to  any  particular  period  of  her  life, 
the  statement  thus  made  led  naturally  to  the 
inference  that  it  excluded  all  sin  from  her 
soul.  Again,  some  four  thousand  years  later, 
at  the  time  of  the  Incarnation,  the  angel  Gab- 
riel called  Mary  full  of  grace,  (Luke  i,  28), 
whereby  he  might  well  seem  to  imply  fulness 
of  time  no  less  than  perfection  of  holiness, 
so  that  Mary  had  been  in  possession  of  divine 


Doctrinal  Development  39 

grace  from  the  very  first  moment  of  her  exist- 
ence. Lastly,  the  very  fact  that  she  was  to  be 
the  Mother  of  God  seemed  to  demand  absolute 
freedom  from  sin  at  every  moment  of  her  life ; 
for  how  can  we  imagine  that  the  Son  of  God 
would  take  flesh  of  a  mother  who  had  been  a 
slave  of  satan  ?  The  very  idea  seems  repugnant 
to  reason ;  because  as  the  honor  of  the  moth- 
er is  the  honor  of  the  child,  so  also  is  the 
disgrace  of  the  mother  the  disgrace  of  the 
child. 

All  these  reasons  made  it  clear  that  the 
doctrine  in  question  rested  on  a  solid  founda- 
tion, and  the  faithful,  almost  without  excep- 
tion, gave  it  their  unhesitating  assent.  Early 
Christian  writers  assumed  it  as  certain  when 
treating  of  Mary's  prerogatives ;  theologians 
taught  it  in  the  schools ;  particular  churches 
commemorated  the  implied  fact  by  a  special 
feast,  and  the  Roman  Pontiffs  even  signified 
their  approval  in  an  unofficial  way:  yet  in 
spite  of  all  this,  the  doctrine  was  not  a  matter 
of  faith,  because  its  revelation  was  not  evident, 
nor  did  the  teaching  Church  in  all  those  ages 
confirm  it  by  an  authoritative  statement.  But 
when  after  nineteen  hundred  years  the  circum- 
stances of  the  times  made  it  desirable  that  a 


40  Doctrinal  Development 

difinitive  declaration  should  be  made,  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff  took  the  matter  under  ad- 
visement, conferred  with  the  Bishops  and  other 
prelates  of  the  Church,  and  then  in  virtue  of 
his  supreme  teaching  office,  and  guided  by  the 
divinely  promised  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
declared  and  defined,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Immaculate  Conception,  according  to  which 
the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  had  in  the  first  in- 
stant of  her  conception  been  preserved  from 
all  stain  of  original  sin,  had  been  revealed  by 
God,  and  was  therefore  to  be  firmly  and  con- 
stantly believed  by  all  the  faithful.  Thus  all 
possible  doubt  concerning  the  doctrine  in  ques- 
tion was  removed ;  what  the  faithful  had  of 
their  own  accord  accepted  and  piously  believed 
for  ages,  was  by  this  definition  made  a  matter 
of  absolute  certainty.  No  new  truth  was 
added  to  the  Deposit  of  Faith ;  but  a  truth 
concerning  which  there  had  been  some  doubt 
as  to  whether  it  was  really  contained  in  the 
Deposit  of  Faith,  was  by  this  solemn  definition 
authoritatively  declared  to  be  most  certainly 
contained  therein. 

In  this  manner  one  doctrine  has  been  ap- 
proved and  defined  after  another;  what  was 
at  first  obscure  has  been  made  clear;  what  for 


Doctrinal  Development  41 

a  long  time  seemed  doubtful  has  at  last  been 
proved  to  be  certain.  Thus,  in  the  lapse  of 
ages,  the  truths  to  be  explicitly  believed  by  the 
faithful,  and  consequently  their  knowledge  of 
the  true  faith,  has  grown  constantly,  not  by 
addition  from  without,  nor  by  new  revelations, 
but  by  a  gradual  unfolding  from  within,  un- 
der the  unfailing  care  of  the  infallible  teach- 
ing authority  which  Christ  established  on  earth. 
It  has  been  a  true  development,  a  healthy 
growth,  proceeding  from  an  internal  vital 
principle,  which  the  Divine  i\uthor  of  the 
Church  breathed  into  her  face  at  the  moment 
of  her  birth.  In  all  her  doctrinal  definitions 
the  Church  has  maintained  her  individual  iden- 
tity, yet  "  shooting  forth  great  branches,"  even 
as  the  tree  that  sprang  from  the  mustard 
seed,  "  the  smallest  indeed  of  all  the  seeds  in 
the  earth."  And  as  in  the  past,  so  will  she 
continue  in  the  future ;  for  she  is  the  work  of 
God,  and  the  work  of  God  endureth  forever. 
Now,  in  what  does  this  development,  this 
growth,  this  progress  in  religion,  differ  from 
that  advocated  by  the  so-called  enlightened 
spirits  of  our  age?  Precisely  in  this,  that  the 
one  is  progress,  and  the  other  is  change.  The 
one  is  a  safeguarding  of  doctrines  always  be- 


42  Doctrinal  Development 

lieved,  and  the  other  is  a  substitution  of  some- 
thing new  for  what  has  come  down  to  us 
from  the  days  of  old.  The  constant  develop- 
ment and  advance  of  scientific  ideas,  say  these 
would-be  theologians,  necessitates  a  new  in- 
terpretation of  the  dogmas  hitherto  taught  by 
the  Church  and  believed  by  the  faithful :  not 
in  the  sense  merely  that  a  fuller  understanding 
of  said  dogmas  is  gradually  acquired,  but  that 
their  very  meaning  is  changed.  As  an  ex- 
ample to  illustrate  this  point,  we  may  take  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  For  eigh- 
teen hundred  years  practically  all  Christians, 
to  whatever  denominations  they  might  be- 
long, were  at  one  in  their  belief  that  Christ 
was,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  the  Son 
of  God,  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  and 
equal  to  him  in  all  things.  Nor  was  this 
only  the  belief  of  the  faithful  in  general,  but 
it  was  put  forward  by  nearly  every  Christian 
Church  as  a  fundamental  dogma.  But  now 
men  in  high  places  come  forward  with  the 
astounding  message,  that,  forced  by  the  find- 
ings of  Higher  Criticism,  we  must  consider 
the  time-honored  belief  in  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  as  obsolete.  A  higher  perception  of 
the  truth  involved  in  the  term  "  Son  of  God," 


Doctrinal  Development  43 

claimed  as  His  own  by  Christ  Himself,  and  ap- 
plied to  Him  by  His  disciples,  makes  it  plain 
that  He  is  not  the  Son  of  God.  Of  course, 
say  they,  if  you  are  so  inclined,  you  may  still 
use  that  name  when  speaking  of  Christ,  but 
only  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  occasionally 
applied  to  other  good  men.  In  nature  and  in 
person  Christ  is  purely  human,  but  because  of 
His  virtue  and  spiritual  enlightenment,  you 
may  consider  Him  godlike,  and  with  that  un- 
derstanding call  Him  the  Son  of  God. 

Now,  is  this  progress  in  religion,  or  is  it 
not  rather  a  change  of  the  same?  Does  the 
religion,  which  for  eighteen  hundred  years 
was  based  upon  the  explicit  belief  in  the  Di- 
vinity of  Christ,  maintain  its  own  identity, 
when  Christ  is  made'  out  to  be  a  mere  man  ? 
Is  it  not  the  most  fundamental  change  that 
could  be  made  in  any  religion?  Why,  it  is 
an  absolute  repudiation  of  Christ  and  His  mes- 
sage, and  a  substitution  for  the  same  of  a 
phanton  decked  out  in  the  incongruous  trap- 
pings of  Paganism.  You  may  call  it  progress, 
if  you  choose,  but  it  is  a  progress  like  that 
which  is  observed  when  death  lays  his  cold 
hand  upon  his  victim  —  it  ends  in  the  horrors 
of  the  tomb. 


44  Doctrinal  Development 

And  here  the  marvel  is,  that  this  modern 
progress  in  reHgion  is  advocated  and  pushed 
forward,  not  by  pronounced  infidels,  but  by 
men  who  call  themselves  Christians,  and  not 
rarely  occupy  high  places  in  their  respective 
denominations.  Scarcely  a  month  passes  with- 
out notice  being  given  by  some  Protes- 
tant Divine,  some  professor  of  theology,  or 
preacher  of  the  Word,  that  he  finds  himself 
out  of  tune  with  the  beliefs  of  the  Christian 
past.  The  Reverend  Briggs,  Carter,  Crapsey, 
and  a  host  of  others,  have  made  public  declara- 
tions of  their  rejection  of  Christian  dogmas, 
on  the  plea  that  they  cannot  be  brought  into 
harmony  with  the  misnamed  scientific  views 
of  the  age.  Such  apostles  of  a  new  Pagan- 
ism are  also,  though  much  more  rarely,  found 
among  persons  who  claim  allegiance  to  the 
Catholic  Church.  Men  on  the  stamp  of  Loisy 
are  almost  as  un-Christian  in  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  as  Harnack  and  his 
school  of  modern  Rationalism.  But  whilst 
among  CathoHcs  such  men  are  promptly  cut- 
off from  the  communion  of  the  faithful,  among 
Protestants,  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  they 
are  allowed  to  carry  on  their  paganizing 
propaganda   without   let   or   hindrance.     And 


Doctrinal  Development  45 

why  not?  What  authority  can  Protestant 
Churches  appeal  to  when  their  doctors  dis- 
agree? The  Scriptures?  Why,  the  Scrip- 
tures in  themselves  are  but  a  dead  letter ;  they 
can  give  utterance  only  when  there  breathes 
through  them  a  quickening  spirit,  infallible 
in  its  decisions  as  the  Spirit  of  God.  They 
must  be  interpreted  by  a  living  authority,  es- 
tablished by  Him  who  commissioned  the 
Apostles  and  their  successors  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  all  nations.  Yet  such  an  authority 
Protestants  will  not  admit.  For  is  it  not  a 
fundamental  principle  in  every  Protestant 
Church,  that  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures everyone  is  his  own  Daniel?  A  Unitar- 
ian has  as  much  right  to  his  views  concerning 
the  personality  of  Christ  as  the  orthodox 
Lutheran,  though  these  respective  views  be 
contradictory.  Hence,  as  St.  Peter  words  it, 
"  They  wrest  the  Scriptures  to  their  own  de- 
struction," 

In  respect  to  this  point,  I  would  ask  you  to 
ponder  the  words  of  the  late  Doctor  De  Costa, 
a  Catholic  convert  from  Anglicanism.  What 
he  said  concerning  the  staid  and  conservative 
Anglican  Church,  applies  with  much  greater 
force  to  every  other  Protestant  denomination. 


40  Doctrinal  Development 

After  handing  in  to  Bishop  Potter  his  resigna- 
tion as  an  Episcopal  clergyman,  he  said :  ''  The 
Bible,  so  far  as  Episcopalians  are  concerned, 
has  met  its  Sedan.  This  diocese  and  the  Epis- 
copal Church  at  large  is  dominated  by  what 
the  ruling  factions  call  '  the  spirit  of  the  age.' 
They  forget  to  say  '  what '  age.  This  '  spirit ' 
that  they  talk  about  is  simply  the  belated  ghost 
of  the  age  of  Arianism.  It  recalls  the  words 
of  one  who  spoke  of  the  Georgian  as  a  period 
when  things  were  shelving  down  into  a  well- 
written,  able,  moral,  gentlemanly  deism." 

"  The  Episcopal  Church  has  made  a  new 
departure,  and  I  cannot  go  along  with  it. 
Consistency  requires  a  repudiation  of  the  whole 
scheme,  and  I  think  I  have  adopted  the  best 
method.  I  prefer  the  faith  I  learned  at  my 
mother's  knee  to  the  inventions  of  sciolists. 
If  any  of  my  old  friends  are  grieved  I  shall 
feel  sorrv." 


III. 

FAITH    AND    SCIENCE. 

The  naturalizing  tendency,  so  strong  and  so 
universal  in  the  religious  world  to-day,  results 
necessarily,  in  a  false  religious  progress.  It 
is  a  false  progress,  because  in  its  last  analysis 
it  means  a  radical  change  of  the  religion  es- 
tablished by  Christ.  •  For  that  religion  is 
essentially  supernatural,  and  a  transition  from 
the  supernatural  to  the  natural  can  be  effected 
only  by  a  change  of  religious  principles.  In 
this  change  many  of  the  outward  manifesta- 
tions of  the  spirit  of  Christ  remain ;  they  still 
brighten  the  world  even  as  the  ruddy  glow  of 
an  autumn  sunset;  but  the  spirit  itself,  that 
rose  like  a  star  of  Jacob,  is  fast  disappearing 
from  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  promoters 
of  this  false  progress  still  call  themselves 
Christians,  but  their  Christianity  is  without 
Christ ;  it  is  a  name  without  a  reality,  a 
shadow  without  a  substance, 
47 


48  Faith  and  Science 

That  this  naturaHzing  tendency  finds  so 
many  advocates  in  modern  times  is  owing  to 
a  variety  of  causes;  yet  the  one  most  fre- 
quently assigned,  at  least  by  those  who  fall 
back  upon  intellectual  reasons,  is  the  supposed 
opposition  between  Faith  and  Science.  If  one 
asks  such  persons  why  they  abandoned  the 
faith  of  their  fathers,  they  look  very  wise  and 
answer  glibly  that  Science  has  undermined 
Faith.  Nay,  if  you  are  a  good  listener,  they 
will  even  theorize  about  the  matter,  and  tell 
you  with  quite  a  show  of  eloquence,  that  there 
is  a  necessary  opposition  between  Faith  and 
Science ;  that  as  the  one  advances,  the  other 
must  recede.  Nor  are  they  at  all  slow  to 
back  up  their  assertions  with  arguments  which 
they  consider  unanswerable.  For,  say  they, 
is  it  not  written  in  nearly  every  book  and 
magazine  and  pamphlet,  issuing  from  the  press 
to-day,  that  Science  has  solved  the  riddle  of 
the  universe ;  that  Science  in  all  its  various 
quests  has  found  neither  a  spiritual  soul  nor 
a  personal  God,  and  that  therefore  it  has  ruled 
the  supernatural  world  out  of  existence  ?  And 
how  could  such  statements  be  made,  if  they 
had  no  foundation  in  fact?  Surely,  it  is  un- 
reasonable, not  to  sav  harsh  and  unkind,  to 


Faith  and  Science  49 

suppose   that   the    authors    of   these    eloquent 
treatises    have    conspired    against    the    truth, 
l  hcrefore,  as  thus  it  is  written,  thus  it  must 
l)c,  and  that  finishes  the  matter. 

Now,  what  shall  we,  who  still  cling  to  the 
faith  of  our  childhood,  and  in  that  faith  kneel 
in  humble  adoration  beneath  the  cross  of  our 
dying  Redeemer  —  what  shall  we  say  in  reply 
to  these  incontrovertible  arguments?  Shall 
we  admit  that  our  faith  was  foolish,  and  that 
our  hope  has  been  vain?  Must  the  glorious 
vision  of  a  blissful  hereafter,  and  the  consola- 
tions flowing  therefrom,  dissolve  before  the 
growing  effulgence  of  Science  even  as  the 
morning  mist  vanishes  before  the  light  of  the 
rising  sun  ?  Or  shall  we  say  that  modern 
Science  is  a  huge  fraud,  a  living  lie,  a  pre- 
tentious sham,  devised  by  the  evil  one  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  leading  unwary  mortals  into 
eternal  destruction  ?  Neither  the  one  nor  the 
other ;  for  there  is  a  middle  way,  which  gives 
to  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  to 
God  the  things  that  are  God's :  which  accords 
to  Science  its  full  meed  of  praise,  and  does 
not  take  from  Faith  the  reverence  justly  its 
own. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  we  readily  admit. 


50  Faith  and  Science 

and  are  proud  to  acknowledge,  that  Science 
has  done  yoeman's  service  in  unraveHng  the 
mysteries  of  nature,  and  in  bringing  to  hght 
hidden  things  whereof  the  world  dreamed  not 
a  hundred  years  ago.  It  has  put  its  finger 
upon  time-honored  theories  concerning  many 
physical  phenomena,  and  has  proved  them  to 
have  been  but  idle  dreams.  It  has  gone  down 
into  the  dark  bowels  of  the  earth  and  ascended 
to  the  starry  heights  of  heaven,  and  every- 
where has  it  written  in  flaming  characters  its 
conquests  and  its  triumphs.  It  has  revolution- 
ized the  world  by  harnessing  the  forces  of  na- 
ture to  the  triumphal  car  of  human  progress, 
and  guided  them  with  steady  hand  towards 
the  coveted  goal  of  magnificence  and  wealth. 
All  this  it  has  done,  and  much  more  it  will 
do  in  the  ages  to  come ;  yet  it  never  has,  and 
it  never  will,  in  its  own  proper  field,  impede 
the  onward  march  of  God's  Church  upon  earth, 
nor  in  the  least  degree  obscure  the  clear  light 
of  Divine  Revelation.  For  Science  and  Faith 
are  twin  daughters  of  the  same  Heavenly 
Father,  and  there  is  naught  in  this  wide  world 
that  can  mar  the  harmony  and  concord  estab- 
lished between  them  on  the  day  of  their  birth. 
It  is  not  Faith  and  Science  that  are  at  war; 


Faith  and  Science  51 

nor  yet  Scientists  and  Theologians  strictly  so 
called ;  but  men  who  misapprehend  the  mission 
of  Science,  or  in  their  ignorance  unduly  ex- 
tend the  bounds  of  Faith,  and  then  presumptu- 
ously set  themselves  up  as  teachers  in  Israel ! 
Have  you  ever  stopped  to  consider  the  un- 
deniable fact  that  Faith  and  Science,  when  con- 
fined to  their  own  proper  spheres,  move  on  two 
different  parallel  planes?  And  this  other  not 
less  undeniable  fact,  that  parallel  planes  can 
never  meet?  Faith  and  Science  treat  at  times 
of  the  same  material  objects,  yet  always  under 
dififerent  aspects.  Faith  considers  the  supra- 
sensible  and  the  spiritual ;  the  whence  and  the 
whither  as  made  known  by  God's  special  mes- 
sage to  man ;  Science  deals  with  the  sensible 
and  the  material ;  with  concrete  conditions  as 
emJDodied  in  present  facts.  ^loreover  between 
the  two  lies  the  neutral  zone  of  Metaphysics, 
which  is  friendly  to  both,  yet  partial  to  neither. 
How  then  can  Faith  and  Science  ever  come 
in  conflict?  Perhaps  you  will  tell  me,  it  is 
precisely  here  that  the  difficulty  lies :  Science 
does  away  with  the  suprasensible  and  the  spir- 
itual, and  consequently  Faith  has  no  plane  to 
move  on.  Science  does  away  with  the  supra- 
sensible  and  spiritual,  does  it?     Let  us  hear, 


52  Faith  and  Science 

what  do  you  mean  by  Science  ?  Do  you  mean 
the  experimental  investigation  of  sensible 
phenomena?  The  study  of  physical  facts  by 
means  of  the  measuring  rod,  the  crucible,  the 
microscope,  and  the  balance?  If  so,  your 
Science  is  wholly  limited  to  matter,  and  can- 
not tell  what  lies  even  so  much  as  a  hair's 
breadth  beyond.  Or  do  you  apply  the  name 
of  Science  to  mathematical  calculations,  based 
upon  the  motion  of  material  particles  in  space  ? 
In  that  case  also,  its  findings  are  necessarily 
circumscribed  by  the  boundaries  of  matter,  and 
the  great  beyond  remains  enveloped  in  Egyp- 
tian darkness.  In  whatever  way,  therefore, 
you  define  Science,  you  cannot  force  from  it 
a  denial  of  the  spiritual  world,  simply  because 
that  world  lies  beyond  its  ken. 

Possibly  you  contend  that  the  suggested 
definitions  are  not  adequate,  and  therefore  an- 
swer that  you  assign  a  wider  scope  to  Science, 
namely,  the  observation  of  physical  phenomena 
together  with  the  study  of  reality  and  being; 
the  investigation,  not  merely  of  accidental 
changes,  but  the  origin  and  destiny  of  things. 
Well,  you  are  entitled  to  abound  in  your  own 
wisdom,  nevertheless  you  are  very  much  at 
fault    in    your    terminology.     The    study    of 


Faith  and  Science  53 

reality  and  being,  relative  to  their  origin  and 
destiny,  does  not  appertain  to  the  province  of 
Science ;  that  belongs  to  Metaphysics,  and  very 
few  scientists  there  are  who  feel  at  ease  in 
those  elevated  regions.  It  is  true,  scientists 
have  a  perfect  right  to  draw  inferences  from 
their  observations ;  to  theorize  about  the  in- 
most nature  of  beings;  to  make  conjectures 
anent  the  origin  of  things ;  but  if  they  do  so, 
they  must  not  speak  in  the  name  of  Science, 
but  of  Philosophy.  As  scientists  they  can  ob- 
serve facts ;  they  can  investigate  the  peculiari- 
ties of  motion,  study  physical  and  chemical 
changes,  experiment  with  the  various  forces 
of  nature,  co-ordinate  observed  facts  and 
formulate  laws,  and  apply  their  knowledge 
thus  gathered  to  the  practical  affairs  of  life: 
but  if  they  wish  to  leave  the  world  of  the 
senses,  and  inquire  whether  there  lies  anything 
beyond,  they  must  be  content  to  appear  in  the 
somber  garb  of  a  philosopher ;  they  can  then 
no  longer  use  measuring  rod  and  balance,  but 
must  employ  the  delicately  adjusted  syllogism, 
and  conform  themselves  to  its  inexorable  laws. 
In  answer  to  this  it  might,  of  course,  be  said 
that  it  makes  little  difference  whether  the 
scientist  speaks  in  the  name  of  Science  or  of 


54  Faith  and  Science 

Philosophy ;  as  long  as  he  can  rule  the  spiritual 
world  out  of  existence,  his  efforts  must  result 
in  the  undoing  of  Supernatural  Faith,  and  so 
it  all  comes  to  the  same  in  the  end.  Just  so: 
but  can  he  rule  the  spiritual  world  out  of  ex- 
istence, even  if  he  puts  on  the  philosopher's 
cap?  What  have  these  scientific  philosophers 
accomplished  towards  unraveling  the  nature 
and  origin  of  things?  As  scientists  they  have 
made  rapid  advance,  for  instance,  in  elucidat- 
ing the  various  phenomena  of  life :  they  have 
studied  all  the  ills  which  the  flesh  is  heir  to; 
they  have  learned  to  make  compounds  of  mar- 
velous virtue,  both  to  prevent  bodily  disorders 
and  to  cure  them;  they  have  analyzed  man's 
brain  and  dissected  his  heart ;  they  understand 
to  some  extent  the  function  of  nearly  every 
muscle  and  nerve  and  tissue  of  the  human 
body:  but  of  that  elusive  principle  which  pre- 
sides over  and  directs  the  upbuilding  of  the 
living  organism,  they  know  absolutely  no  more 
than  did  Aristotle  two  thousand  years  ago.  If 
they  remain  within  their  own  province  of 
scientific  investigation,  they  understand  neither 
life's  nature  nor  its  origin ;  if  they  cross  the 
boundary  lines  of  Science  and  enter  the  do- 
main  of   Metaphysics,   reason   compels   them, 


Faith  and  Science  55 

as  it  compelled  the  Greek  philosopher  of  old, 
to  say  that  the  life-principle  is  of  a  higher 
order  of  being  than  the  material  elements 
which  it  builds  up  into  the  graceful  form  of 
a  human  body,  and  that  in  itself  it  is  somehow 
the  product  of  an  intelligent  casuality. 

Time  was,  indeed,  when  scientists  fancied 
they  had  robbed  nature  of  her  secrets ;  when 
they  imagined  that  life  might  be  derived  from 
non-life  by  a  proper  collocation  and  combina- 
tion of  atoms ;  but  Science  itself,  when  ser- 
iously interrogated,  answers  that  such  hopes 
are  but  idle  dreams,  the  foolish  fancies  of 
visionaries.  Despite  sensational  proclama- 
tions, issuing  periodically  from  the  laborator- 
ies of  scientific  quacks,  it  is  as  true  to-day 
as  it  has  ever  been,  that  life  comes  only  from 
life ;  and  what  life  itself  may  be.  Science  can- 
not tell.  And  as  it  is  with  life,  in  all  its  vari- 
ous forms  and  grades,  so  is  it  with  every  other 
reality  which  Science  ventures  to  investigate. 
Ask  this  idol  of  the  modern  world  what  is  the 
inmost  nature  of  the  least  mote  that  floats  in 
the  sunbeam,  and  it  is  dumb  as  the  Egyptian 
Sphinx.  Ask  it  what  light  may  be;  what 
electricity ;  what  the  ultimate  reality  of  gold, 
or    silver,    or   of   any    of   the    other    elements 


56  Faith  and  Science 

whereof  the  diverse  beings  that  make  up  this 
world  of  ours  are  said  to  be  constituted,  and 
its  answer  will  ever  be :  ''  I  cannot  tell."  And 
this  Science,  that  knows  not  the  implements  of 
its  own  trade,  would  ascend  the  throne  of  maj- 
esty and  judge  the  great  unknown  that  lies 
beyond  the  narrow  bounds  of  space  and  time ! 
For  very  pity's  sake,  ye  lovers  and  admirers 
of  Science,  do  not  insult  your  well  beloved  by 
attributing  to  her  pretensions  Vv^hich  she  would 
not  so  much  as  touch  with  the  tip  of  her 
finger. 

Touching  this  point,  namely,  the  inherent 
inability  of  Science  to  tell  what  may  or  may 
not  lie  beyond  the  world  of  the  senses,  the 
greatest  scientists  make  the  most  liberal  con- 
cessions. Thus  Professor  Ray  Lankester,  the 
well  known  and  distinguished  director  of  the 
British  Natural  History  Museum,  says  very 
pointedly :  *'  The  whole  order  of  nature,  in- 
cluding living  and  lifeless  matter  —  man,  ani- 
mal, and  gas  —  is  a  network  of  mechanism, 
the  main  features  and  many  details  of  which 
have  been  made  more  or  less  obvious  to  the 
wondering  intelligence  of  mankind  by  the  labor 
and  ingenuity  of  scientific  investigators.  But 
no  sane  man  has  ever  pretended,  since  Science 


Faith  and  Science  57 

became  a  definite  body  of  doctrine,  that  we 
know,  or  ever  can  hope  to  know,  or  conceive 
or  the  possibUty  of  knowing,  whence  this 
mechanism  has  come,  why  it  is  here,  whither 
it  is  going,  and  what  there  may  be  or  may  not 
be  beyond  and  beside  it  which  our  senses  are 
incapable  of  appreciating.  These  things  are 
not  '  explained  '  by  Science,  and  never  can  be." 
(Letter  to  the  Times,  May  19,  1903.)  The 
same  was  taught  by  Huxley,  the  great  apostle 
of  Agnosticism.  "  Science,"  he  stated  in  an 
article  published  in  the  Fortnightly  Review, 
"  has  no  more  to  say  against  the  doctrine  of 
Theism  than  the  most  ordinary  experience 
has,  and  it  effectually  closes  the  mouths  of 
those  who  pretend  to  refute  it  by  objections 
deduced  from  physical  data."  (Fortnightly 
Review,  Vol.  XL,  1886.) 

Hence  according  to  the  statements  of  its 
own  most  capable  representatives.  Science  has 
nothing  to  say  against  the  existence  of  a  spir- 
itual world,  simply  because  that  world  lies 
beyond  the  field  of  scientific  inquiry.  As 
Professor  Lankester  puts  it :  "  It  appears  to 
me  that  science  proceeds  on  its  path  without 
any  contact  with  religion,  and  that  religion  has 
not,  in  its  essential  qualities,  anything  to  hope 


5^  Faith  and  Science 

from,  or  to  fear  from,  science."  However, 
though  Science  affords  no  direct  proof,  either 
for  or  against  the  existence  of  a  spiritual 
world,  yet  indirectly  it  prepares  the  way  for 
a  -demonstration  that  places  the  reality  of  such 
a  world  beyond  all  doubt.  For  does  not  Sci- 
ence tell  us  in  most  eloquent  language  that 
every  mundane  being,  which  it  contemplates, 
is  subject  to  change?  Does  it  not  point  per- 
sistently to  a  marvelous  interaction  of  laws 
whence  results  a  universe  of  surpassing 
beauty?  Does  it  not  linger  in  loving  delight 
over  a  harmony  of  subordinated  existences 
that  is  truly  divine  in  its  origin  and  finality? 
And  what  are  these  glowing  utterances  of 
Science  but  the  premise  of  an  argument 
whence  reason  necessarily  infers  that  there 
exists,  beyond  the  bounds  of  this  visible  world, 
an  invisible,  intelligent,  unchangeable,  and 
benign  First  Cause,  whose  omnipotent  will  has 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  universe ;  whose  in- 
finite goodness  has  called  into  existence  all 
things,  both  great  and  small;  whose  bound- 
less wisdom  has  assigned  to  each  separate 
being  its  own  proper  end,  and  traced  with  un- 
erring hand  the  laws  that  must  guide  it  in 
the  attainment  of  that  end  ?     Yes,  ask  Science 


Faith  and  Science  59 

whether  there  exists  a  spirit  world;  it  will 
answer,  indeed :  '*  I  cannot  tell,"  but  it  will 
add  without  delay :  ''  Tell  reason  to  draw  the 
proper  and  necessary  inference  from  my  most 
certain  findings,  and  that  inference  will  be 
without  fail :  "  God  exists,  and  that  God  has 
created  spiritual  souls,  which  He  binds  to 
Himself  with  the  bonds  of  Faith  and  Hope 
and  Charity,  and  therefore  Supernatural  Faith 
is  in  very  deed  my  own  twin  sister,  enjoying 
the  same  divine  birthright  as  myself,  but  is 
fairer  of  form  and  more  queenly  of  aspect." 
Well  did  the  illustrious  Kepler,  after  his  bril- 
liant discovery  of  the  laws  which  still  bear  his 
name,  cry  out  in  religious  awe  and  reverence : 
"  O  God,  I  think  Thy  thoughts  after  Thee." 

Possibly  the  very  evidence  of  this  presen- 
tation of  the  matter  makes  you  suspicious  of 
the  soundness  of  my  reasoning.  Possibly  you 
apprehend  that  I  have  indulged  in  metaphysical 
word-spinning ;  that  I  have  turned  a  logical 
trick,  and  thus  arrived  at  a  conclusion  which 
is  warranted  neither  by  Science  nor  by  Philo- 
sophy. For,  you  will  ask,  how  can  scientists, 
in  the  face  of  such  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
maintain  so  stoutly  that  they  have  proved  the 
spiritual    world    to   be   but   a    myth?     Or,    at 


6o  Faith  and  Science 

least,  that  we  can  never  hope  to  know  any- 
thing about  the  existence  of  such  a  world? 
To  this  question  I  answer,  that  scientists  in 
general  maintain  nothing  of  the  kind.  Do  you 
suppose,  even  for  a  moment,  that  the  turbid 
flood  of  sensationalism,  which  deluges  the 
pages  of  magazines  and  popular  science  books, 
issues  from  the  minds  of  scientists  as  its 
f ountainhead  ?  Why,  things  of  that  sort  are 
but  the  stock-in-trade  of  shallow  hangers-on ; 
the  idle  dreams  of  the  camp  followers  of  Sci- 
ence, who  would  sell  their  very  souls  for 
filthy  lucre,  or  for  the  empty  honor  of  news- 
paper notoriety.  If  you  wish  to  know  what 
Science  has  to  say  anent  these  matters,  you 
must  consult  the  works  of  real  scientists ; 
they  are  the  legitimate  interpreters  of  their 
own  findings ;  yet  they  either  waive  the  ques- 
tion of  the  spiritual  world  altogether,  as  lying 
beyond  their  proper  field  of  inquiry,  or  else 
even  pronounce  distinctly  in  favor  of  its  ex- 
istence. Thus  Lord  Kelvin,  one  of  the  fore- 
most scientists  to-day,  says  Very  pointedly: 
"  Science  positively  affirms  creating  and  direc- 
tive power,  which  she  compels  us  to  accept  as 
an  article  of  belief."  (Nineteenth  Century 
and  After,  June,  1903.)     And  again  :  *'  Science 


Faith  and  Science  6i 

positively  affirms  the  creative  power,  and 
makes  every  man  feel  a  miracle  in  himself. 
Science  is  not  antagonistic  to,  but  a  help  for 
religion."  (Letter  to  the  Times,  May  2, 
1903.)  The  same  language  is  used  by  Sir 
Gabriel  G.  Stokes,  another  eminent  scientist. 
"  The  study  of  the  phenomena  of  nature,"  he 
says,  *'  leads  us  to  the  contemplation  of  a  Being 
from  whom  proceeded  the  orderly  arrangement 
of  natural  things  that  we  behold."  (Burnet 
Lectures,  p.  Z'^7')  So  also  Clerk-Maxwell, 
who  concluded  his  famous  lecture  before  the 
British  Association  with  these  eloquent  words : 
"  Those  aspirations  after  accuracy  in  measure- 
ments, truth  in  statement,  and  justice  in  action, 
which  we  reckon  among  our  noblest  attributes 
as  men,  are  ours  because  they  are  essential  con- 
stituents of  the  image  of  Him  who  in  the  be- 
ginning created,  not  only  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  but  the  materials  of  which  heaven  and 
earth  consist."  Finally,  the  great  Pasteur, 
whose  fame  as  a  scientific  investigator  is 
world-wide,  said  at  the  end  of  his  long  and 
brilliant  career :  "  The  more  I  know  the  more 
nearly  does  my  faith  approach  that  of  the 
Breton  peasant.  Could  I  but  know  it  all,  my 
faith  would  doubtless  equal  even  that  of  the 


62  Faith  and  Science 

Breton    peasant    woman."     (Horgan:    Great 
Catholic  Laymen.) 

And  so  I  might  continue  ad  infinitum,  quot- 
ing men  who  hold  the  very  first  places  in  the 
scientific  world,  yet  who  declare  in  no  uncer- 
tain terms  that  Science,  so  far  from  ruling 
the  spiritual  world  out  of  existence,  rather 
postulates  the  same  as  the  only  final  explana- 
tion of  the  visible  universe.  It  is  true,  there 
are  men  like  Haeckel  and  Berthelot,  who  scout 
the  very  idea  of  God  and  Religion,  but  their 
blasphemous  pronunciamentos  do  by  no  means 
voice  the  prevailing  opinion  of  present-day 
scientists.  Concerning  Haeckel  and  his  school, 
Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  himself  a  scientist  of  repute, 
has  this  to  say :  ''  He  is,  as  it  were,  a  surviv- 
ing voice  from  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century ;  he  represents,  in  clear  and  eloquent 
fashion,  opinions  which  then  were  prevalent 
among  many  leaders  of  thought  —  opinions 
which  they  themselves  in  many  cases,  and  their 
successors  still  more,  lived  to  outgrow ;  so  that 
by  this  time  Professor  Haeckel's  voice  is  as 
the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  not 
as  a  pioneer  or  vanguard  of  an  advancing 
army,  but  as  the  despairing  shout  of  a  stan- 
dard-bearer,   still    bold    and    unflinching,    but 


Faith  and  Science  63 

abandoned  by  the  retreating  ranks  of  his  com- 
rades as  they  march  to  new  orders  in  a  fresh 
direction."  Then  Sir  OHver  states  his  own 
view  in  these  words  :  ''  The  essence  of  the  mind 
is  design  and  purpose  There  are  some  who 
deny  that  there  is  any  design  or  purpose  in 
the  universe  at  all :  but  how  can  that  be  main- 
tained when  humanity  itself  possesses  these 
attributes?  ....  This  is  my  creed,  and 
it  seems  to  me  the  only  rational  creed  for  a 
man  of  science."  (Mind  and  Matter:  Hibbert 
Journal,  Feb.,  1905.) 

Lastly,  the  strongest  proof  of  the  harmless- 
ness  of  Science,  as  far  as  Faith  is  concerned, 
we  find  in  the  undeniable  fact  that  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  though  always  safeguarding  with 
jealous  care  the  rights  of  the  supernatural,  yet 
advocates  and  promotes  the  study  of  Science 
by  every  means  in  her  power.  Every  Catho- 
lic college  and  university,  all  the  world  over, 
includes  in  its  curriculum  the  study  of  the  sci- 
ences as  an  obligatory  course ;  whilst  Catholic 
men,  as  staunch  in  their  faith  as  were  their 
forebears  in  the  earliest  Christian  ages,  are 
in  the  very  forefront  of  that  noble  army  of 
scientists  who  make  the  study  of  nature  their 
life-work.     Pasteur,    Schwann,    Duhem,    and 


64  Faith  and  Science 

scores  of  others,  are  names  to  conjure  by  even 
in  this  our  enHghtened  age ;  yet  they  stand  for 
soHd  CathoHc  piety,  and  are  held  in  the  highest 
repute  in  the  Church  that  claims  a  super- 
natural mission  on  earth.  Nor  can  it  be  said 
that  the  Catholic  Church  assumes  this  favor- 
able attitude  in  sheer  self-defense,  being  forced, 
as  it  were,  by  the  spirit  of  the  age  to  make  the 
most  of  a  desperate  situation.  If  you  will  take 
the  trouble  to  read  up  an  unbiased  History  of 
Science,  you  will  find  Catholic  names  on  its 
every  page,  and  incidentally  you  will  also  find 
that  the  bearers  of  these  names  were  highly 
honored  in  the  Church  whereof  they  were 
members. 

Now,  is  it  at  all  likely  that  the  Church, 
which  is  said  to  wield  over  her  members  an 
authority  that  brooks  no  gainsaying,  would 
have  tolerated,  much  less  encouraged,  these 
studies,  if  they  could  possibly  endanger  the 
faith  which  forms  the  very  foundation  of  all 
her  teachings?  Or  did  she  perhaps  fail  to 
foresee  the  final  results  to  which  these  studies 
would  lead?  Neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 
She  encouraged  scientific  investigations  in  the 
past  for  the  very  same  reason  that  she  en- 
courages them  at  present,  namely,  to  lead  her 


Faith  and  Science  65 

children  from  the  contemplation  of  nature  to 
the  love  of  nature's  God.  She  has  ever 
realized  the  truth  implied  in  the  oft  quoted 
words  of  Lord  Bacon :  "  Both  reason  and  ex- 
perience show  conclusively  that  a  little  knowl- 
edge turneth  away  from  God,  but  more  ex- 
tended research  and  study  turneth  the  soul 
i  back  to  God."  Hence  we  may  well  conclude 
that  Faith  has  nothing  to  fear  from  Science, 
nor  Science  from  Faith ;  but  men  who  are 
ignorant  of  the  one  and  despise  the  other  are 
a  source  of  danger  to  both. 


PART  SECOND. 
I. 

ORIGIN   AND  EFFECTS  OF  RELIGIOUS  PREJUDICE. 

Prejudice,  taken  in  its  literal  significance, 
means  a  pre-judgment,  or  a  judgment  formed 
prior  to  the  examination  of  a  question  upon 
which  it  is  made  to  bear.  In  its  more  common 
acceptation,  however,  it  signifies  an  habitual 
state  of  mind,  which  leads  a  person  almost 
unconsciously  to  form  a  judgment  without 
examining  into  the  matter  whereof  there  is 
question.  Thus,  for  instance,  if  I  have  a  bad 
opinion  of  someone,  who,  let  us  say,  is  ac- 
cused of  murder,  and  then  allow  that  bad 
opinion  to  influence  me  in  such  a  way  as  to 
conclude  in  my  own  mind  that  the  accused 
person  has  committed  the  crime,  though  as 
yet  no  evidence  has  been  brought  forward  to 
prove  him  guilty,  I  am  properly  said  to  be 
prejudiced  against  him,  and  the  unfavorable 
67 


68  Religious  Prejudice 

judgment  which  I  pass  upon  him  is  the  natural 
result  of  prejudice.  The  habitual  state  of  my 
mind  with  respect  to  that  person  is  such  that 
I  am  much  more  disposed  to  believe  of  him 
what  is  evil  than  what  is  good;  I  judge  his 
conduct,  his  words  and  actions,  in  the  light 
of  the  bad  opinion  which  I  have  formed  of 
his  character.  In  its  last  analysis,  therefore, 
prejudice  is  an  habitual  state  of  mind  which 
influences  our  judgments  of  persons  and 
things,  and  makes  these  judgments  favorable 
or  unfavorable  according  as  we  are  well  or 
ill  affected  towards  the  persons  and  things  in 
question. 

From  this  it  is  readily  understood  what  I 
mean  when  I  say  that  Protestants  are  pre- 
judiced against  the  Catholic  Church.  I  main- 
tain that  they  are  habitually  in  a  frame  of 
mind  which  leads  them,  unconsciously  if  you 
will,  to  interpret  everything  Catholic  in  an 
unfavorable  sense.  That  this  is  an  incon- 
trovertible fact,  and  not  a  mere  theory,  I  shall 
make  clear  in  the  several  discussions  that  are 
to  follow ;  for  the  present  I  am  concerned  only 
with  the  origin  and  necessary  effects  of  re- 
ligious prejudice. 

Though   religious   prejudice   may  originate 


Religious  Prejudice  69 

in  a  variety  of  ways,  yet  it  can  ultimately  be 
referred  to  one  of  three  sources.  The  first  of 
these  sources  is  misapprehension  of  doctrinal 
teachings  and  devotional  practices.  Thus 
when  the  Catholic  Church  proposes  certain 
doctrines  to  the  belief  of  her  children,  or  en- 
courages the  practice  of  certain  devotions, 
those  outside  her  fold  hear  about  it,  explain 
the  matter  in  their  own  way,  and  not  rarely 
arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  doctrine  or 
devotion  in  question  comes  in  conflict  with 
some  clearly  defined  law,  either  human  or 
divine.  This  conclusion  once  formed,  they  be- 
come, of  course,  ill  disposed  towards  the 
Church,  fancying  that  she  arrogates  to  herself 
an  authority  which  is  opposed  either  to  reason 
or  to  revelation.  Of  this  we  find  an  instance 
in  the  early  Church,  when  the  Christians  were 
accused  of  the  horrible  crime  of  feasting  on 
the  flesh  of  infants,  which  they  were  said  to 
immolate  in  their  sacrificial  rites.  The  sole 
foundation  for  this  slander  was  the  belief  of 
the  faithful  that  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass 
bread  and  wine  were  changed  into  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  both  of  which  they  re- 
ceived in  Holy  Communion  as  the  food  of 
their   souls.     The   pagans,    unable   to    under- 


70  Religious  Prejudice 

stand  so  sublime  a  doctrine,  interpreted  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  in  accordance  with 
their  own  carnal  views,  and  so  represented  the 
holiest  of  rites  as  the  most  shocking  of  crimes. 
Something  similar  happened  in  more  recent 
times,  when  at  the  Vatican  Council  the  infal- 
libility of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  was  defined  as 
an  article  of  Catholic  belief.  That  doctrine, 
if  but  rightly  understood,  contains  nothing  at 
which  fair-minded  Protestants  can  justly  take 
offense.  For  it  means  neither  more  nor  less 
than  that  the  Pope,  when  acting  in  his  capacity 
as  Supreme  Teacher  of  all  the  faithful,  is 
specially  assisted  by  God,  so  that  through  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  he  is  preserved 
from  teaching  anything  that  is  opposed  to 
faith  or  morals.  It  is  a  doctrine  that  is  solidly 
based  upon  the  teaching  of  Christ  Himself,  and 
was  implicitly  believed  by  the  faithful  from 
the  very  beginning  of  Christianity.  Yet  how 
Protestants  were  scandalized  at  this  harmless 
definition  of  the  council !  They  could  not  find 
terms  strong  enough  to  express  adequately 
their  indignation  at  this  exhibition  of  popish 
arrogance.  And  what  was  the  principal  rea- 
son of  all  this  excitement?  Nothing  but  a 
most  ludicrous  misapprehension  of  the  defini- 


Religious  Prejudice  71 

tion  in  question.  Some  thought  that  the  Pope 
had  been  declared  impeccable,  so  that,  human 
though  he  was,  he  could  not  commit  sin. 
Others  fancied  that  he  had  been  made  a  sort  of 
prophet,  to  whom,  as  occasions  demanded, 
new  revelations  were  imparted.  Others, 
again,  would  have  it  that  he  could  neither  tell 
a  lie  nor  make  a  mistake,  no  matter  what  he 
might  say  or  about  what  topic  he  might  dis- 
course. No  wonder  they  were  scandalized  at 
so  monstrous  a  doctrine ;  but  that  doctrine  was 
their  own  false  interpretation  of  a  definition 
warranted  by  Christ's  most  certain  teaching. 
And  so  hundreds  of  instances  might  be  ad- 
duced, where  misapprehension  of  doctrinal 
teachings  or  devotional  practices  has  given 
rise  to  false  judgments,  which  in  course  of 
time  have  settled  down  into  almost  irremov- 
able prejudice. 

The  second  source  of  religious  prejudice  we 
find  in  deliberate  calumny,  scattered  broad- 
cast by  the  enemies  of  the  Church.  From 
this  source  flow  many  prejudices  that  have 
come  down  to  us  from  the  religious  revolution 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  As  an  instance  take 
the  immortal  calumny,  started  by  Luther  and 
his  associates,  that  before  the  Reformation  the 


y2  Religious  Prejudice 

Bible  was  withheld  from  the  people.  After 
their  break  with  Rome,  these  men  tried  by 
every  means  in  their  power  to  create  the  im- 
pression that  in  Catholic  times  the  Bible  had 
been  an  unknown  book,  at  least  as  far  as  the 
laity  were  concerned.  How  well  they  suc- 
ceeded in  their  efforts  we  all  know ;  for  even 
in  this  our  enlightened  age  it  is  still  quite  a 
common  belief  among  Protestants  that  Luther 
first  made  the  Bible  accessible  to  the  people. 
This  effort  on  the  part  of  the  reformers  I  call 
a  deliberate  calumny,  because  as  educated  men 
they  must  have  been  aware  that  before  the 
first  Protestant  version  was  published,  there 
had  been  issued,  in  the  various  modern  lan- 
guages, nearly  two  hundred  editions  of  the 
Bible,  even  though  the  art  of  printing  was  still 
a  matter  of  recent  invention.  Besides,  Luther 
himself,  in  an  unguarded  moment,  stated  ex- 
plicitly :  "  When  I  was  young  I  accustomed 
myself  to  read  the  Bible,  and  I  read  it  often." 
(Table-talk:  ed.  1568,  fol.  16.)  The  same 
was  stated  by  Melanchthon,  his  fellow  re- 
former, who  even  added  that  in  his  boyhood 
"  the  Bible  was  read  much  more  frequently  by 
the  young  than  was  the  custom  after  the  Ref- 
ormation."    (Lampert:     Lexicon,     art.     The 


Religious  Prejudice  73 

Bible,  p.  460.)  Yet  in  their  youth  both  Luther 
and  Melanchthon  were  CathoHcs,  and  so  they 
must  have  been  aware  that  the  people  had 
access  to  the  Bible. 

From  the  same  source  comes  the  old-time 
Protestant  belief,  now  dying  a  slow  but  sure 
death,  that  the  Pope  is  Anti-Christ.  Luther 
had  always  been  a  firm  believer  in  the  Papal 
Supremacy,  but  when  his  writings  were  con- 
demned by  Rome,  he  fell  into  a  furious  rage, 
and  tried  to  justify  his  course  by  representing 
the  Pope  as  the  impersonation  of  all  that  was 
evil,  against  whom  the  whole  Christian  world 
was  bound  to  take  up  arms.  (Letter  to  Ger- 
man Nobles.)  So  also  against  his  better  judg- 
ment did  he  condemn  the  Mass  as  an  act  of 
idolatry ;  preached  against  indulgences  as  a 
means  to  extort  money,  and  discovered  a  hun- 
dred other  enormities  which  he  had  never 
dreamt  of  until  Rome  took  an  authoritative 
stand  against  his  innovations.  Of  course, 
neither  he  nor  his  associates  expected  that  all 
they  said  would  be  believed,  but  then  they  well 
understood  the  truth  of  the  old  adage :  *'  Fling 
enough  dirt  and  some  will  stick."  And  some 
did  stick  and  sticks  to-day,  and  you  can  no 


74  Religious  Prejudice 

more  remove  it  than  you  can  wash  the  black- 
ness off  the  Ethiopian's  skin. 

The  third  source  of  rehgious  prejudice  is 
suppHed  by  CathoHcs  themselves,  and  consists 
in  the  disagreement  between  their  faith  and 
their  practice.  There  are  too  many  Catholics 
who  seem  to  put  into  practice  Luther's  oft- 
quoted  rule  of  conduct :  "  Believe  firmly  and 
sin  boldly."  They  believe  in  the  Church  of 
which  they  are  members ;  they  hold  that  good 
works  are  necessary  for  salvation ;  they  ad- 
mit without  thought  of  contradiction  that  the 
laws  of  the  Church  are  just,  even  as  the  com- 
mandments of  God  are  sacred ;  and  then  con- 
vinced of  all  this,  admitting  it  all  in  theory, 
they  disregard  it  entirely  in  practice :  They 
lead  lives  that  are  a  continuous  violation  of 
the  precepts  of  the  Church  and  of  the  com- 
mandments of  God.  In  their  private  conduct 
they  are  impure  and  contentious,  and  in  their 
pubHc  careers,  venal  and  corrupt:  they  drink 
and  swear  and  quarrel  and  cheat  and  boodle 
as  if  there  were  no  God  in  heaven,  nor  a 
Church  of  Christ  upon  earth.  They  say  Lord, 
Lord,  and  then  show  no  more  concern  for  the 
will  of  their  Father  in  heaven  than  the  pagans 
did  for  the  gods  whom  they  had  learned  to 


Religious  Prejudice  75 

despise.  Compared  to  the  totality  of  Catho- 
lics, such  cases  are  indeed  exceptions;  yet 
Protestants,  strongly  impressed  by  the  disor- 
derly lives  of  these  men,  are  liable  to  suspect 
similar  disorders  in  others,  thus  acting  on  the 
time-honored  principle :  E.v  iino  disce  omnes. 
From  one  infer  all  the  rest.  Nor  do  they  stop 
here,  but  they  put  the  blame  of  it  all  upon 
the  Church  of  which  these  name-Catholics  are 
members. 

All  this  is  intensified  when  somewhat  simi- 
lar disorders  are  observed  in  individual  mem- 
bers-of  the  clergy,  or  in  persons  consecrated 
to  God.  Though  there  be  only  one  case  in 
a  thousand,  yet  this  is  quite  sufficient  to  drag 
the  fair  name  of  every  priest  and  monk  and 
nun  into  the  mire.  If  you  will,  this  is  unfair 
on  the  part  of  our  non-Catholic  brethren ; 
they  ought  to  remember  that  no  matter  how 
true  and  holy  a  religion  may  be,  it  cannot  be 
expected  to  make  saints  of  persons  who  fail 
to  put  its  precepts  into  practice;  they  ought 
to  bear  in  mind  that  among  the  twelve 
Apostles,  trained  by  Christ  Himself,  there  was 
one  whom  the  gentlest  of  men  felt  justified 
in  calling  a  devil ;  nor  ought  they  to  forget 
that  what  they  blame  in  Catholics  is  of  daily 


^6  Religious  Prejudice 

occurrence  among  themselves  :  —  all  this  is 
true ;  our  non-Catholic  brethren  are  unfair 
when  they  blame  the  Church  for  the  misdeeds 
of  her  disobedient  children;  nevertheless  the 
fact  remains  that  they  often  do  judge  after  this 
fashion,  and  so  the  mischief  is  done. 

Thus,  then,  partly  through  misapprehension 
of  Catholic  doctrines  and  practices ;  partly  be- 
cause of  slanders  and  calumnies  scattered 
broadcast  by  religious  innovators ;  and  partly 
on  account  of  the  evil  lives  of  individual 
Catholics,  those  outside  the  Church  are  un- 
favorably impressed :  and  these  impressions, 
gaining  force  through  frequent  repetition  of 
the  causes  from  which  they  proceeded,  little 
by  little  create  a  state  of  mind  that  is  either 
openly  or  secretly  hostile  to  everything  Catho- 
lic. Nor  does  this  state  of  mind  disappear 
with  the  individual  in  whom  it  was  first  pro- 
duced, but  it  is  handed  down  from  father  to 
son  and  from  mother  to  daughter,  becoming 
a  sort  of  family  heirloom  which  each  succeed- 
ing generation  guards  with  jealous  care. 
With  the  lapse  of  time  individual  charges  may 
lose  their  force ;  particular  accusations  may 
become  somewhat  indefinite  in  outline ;  cal- 
umnies and  misconceptions  may  all  merge  into 


Religious  Prejudice  *j^ 

one :  yet  the  unfavorable  opinion,  formed  for 
one  reason  or  another,  remains  as  a  stable 
condition,  and  acts  as  a  distorting  medium 
by  reason  of  which  the  views  and  practices 
of  the  Church  are  necessarily  misrepresented. 
From  this  it  may  readily  be  inferred  what 
must  be  the  effects  of  religious  prejudice  in 
the  case  of  persons  who  are  under  its  sway. 
Already  convinced  that  out  of  the  Catholic 
Church  nothing  good  can  come,  they  never 
think  of  considering  her  claims  to  be  the 
Church  of  Christ.  Such  persons  may  feel  in 
their  hearts  that  their  own  particular  form  of 
religion  is  wofuUy  defective ;  they  may  see 
that  it  bears  the  hall-mark  of  human  inven- 
tion ;  they  may  be  disturbed  in  conscience  and 
anxiously  cast  about  for  a  religion  that  will 
satisfy  their  needs :  yet  in  all  their  search  after 
truth  they  will  never  turn  to  the  Catholic 
Church :  for  "  Can  anything  of  good  come 
from  Nazareth?"  Nay  worse,  if  by  some 
chance  they  hear  an  explanation  of  Catholic 
doctrines,  no  matter  how  reasonable,  how  clear, 
how  solid,  they  will  only  harden  their  hearts, 
so  that  having  eyes  they  see  not,  and  having 
ears  they  hear  not.  They  may  not  be  able  to 
answer    the    arguments    brought    forward    in 


78  Religious  Prejudice 

favor  of  the  Catholic  cause,  yet  this  does 
not  in  the  least  disturb  them;  for  they  only 
shrug  their  shoulders  and  say :  "  It  is  some 
Jesuitical  trick,  a  juggling  with  words,  an- 
other evidence  of  priest-craft,  from  which 
every  true  Protestant  is  in  honor  bound  to 
flee  as  from  the  sight  of  a  serpent."  They 
are  in  search  of  the  truth,  but  between  it  and 
them  there  is  fixed  a  gulf  which  they  cannot 
cross.  Over  their  eyes  hangs  the  thick  veil 
of  prejudice,  which  even  the  light  of  God's 
own  truth  cannot  pierce ;  and  so,  having  lost 
faith  in  their  own  religion,  and  despairing  of 
finding  the  truth  anywhere,  they  are  finally 
submerged  in  the  vast  ocean  of  religious  in- 
difit'erentism  out  of  which  there  is  no  redemp- 
tion. 

Another  effect  of  religious  prejudice  mani- 
fests itself  in  the  constant  misrepresentation 
of  things  Catholic.  To  the  prejudiced  per- 
son the  Catholic  Church  stands  for  all  that  is 
selfish,  narrow-minded,  intolerant,  and  deceit- 
ful, and  in  that  light  he  judges  of  all  he  se.es 
at  home  or  hears  abroad.  If  he  observes 
Catholics  at  their  devotions,  kneeling  in  hum- 
ble prayer  in  the  house  of  God,  he  regards 
them    either    as    superstitious    or    as    entirely 


Religious  Prejudice  79 

wrapt  up  in  outward  ceremonies  and  empty 
formalities ;  as  persons  who  honor  God  with 
their  Hps,  but  whose  heart  is  far  from  Him. 
Should  he  come  across  some  magnificent  mani- 
festation of  Catholic  charity,  or  self-sacrfice 
in  the  cause  of  religion,  he  forthwith  puts  it 
down  as  a  piece  of  Pharisaical  hypocrisy,  or  as 
stupid  fanaticism  which  will  surrender  life  it- 
self in  the  furtherance  of  an  unworthy  cause. 
Thus  on  whatever  he  sees  or  hears  he  makes 
his  comments  as  prompted  by  deep-rooted 
prejudice.  Nay,  he  will  dress  up  these  com- 
ments in  the  form  of  a  racy  magazine  article, 
or  sensational  communication  to  newspapers, 
intersperse  them  liberally  with  scandals  real 
or  imaginery,  and  thus  not  only  harm  him- 
self by  wandering  farther  and  farther  from 
the  truth,  but  also  lead  astray  others,  who, 
till  they  read  his  personal  observations,  were 
still  well  disposed. 

Nor  does  the  matter  end  with  the  harm  thus 
caused  to  Protestants,  but  weak-kneed  Catho- 
lics, who  were  only  waiting  for'  an  excuse  to 
give  up  the  practice  of  their  religion,  eagerly 
pounce  upon  these  silly  stories  and  proclaim 
in  trumpet  tones  their  indignation  at  the  way 
things  are  done  in  the  Church  of  which  they 


8o  Religious  Prejudice 

have  the  misfortune  to  be  members.  Whilst 
others  who  mean  well  become  ill  at  ease  when 
brought  face  to  face  with  such  revelations, 
and  though  they  will  never  prove  untrue  to 
the  religion  which  has  been  to  them  a  solace 
in  all  their  trials,  still  they  lose  much  of  thaf 
childlike  confidence  and  implicit  trust  which 
heretofore  was  the  sunshine  of  their  lives. 

Perhaps  some  may  think  that  I  am  exag- 
gerating; that  I  am  drawing  on  my  imagina- 
tion; that  I  am  trying  without  just  cause  to 
represent  the  Catholic  Church  as  the  victim 
of  a  widespread  conspiracy,  whose  ultimate 
object  is  the  destruction  of  Catholicism.  If 
any  there  be  who  take  that  view,  I  can  only 
invite  them  to  study  the  matter  for  .themselves. 
They  need  but  open  a  current  number  of  our 
monthly  magazines,  or  turn  over  the  pages 
of  our  Sunday  papers,  and  before  they  have 
proceeded  very  far,  they  will  come  upon  a 
communication  from  some  Protestant  Divine, 
or  from  some  non-Catholic  missionary,  either 
male  or  female,  who  made  a  flying  trip  to 
Porto  Rico  or  the  Philippine  Island,  or  to 
some  Catholic  country  on  the  European  con- 
tinent, and  has  discovered  as  by  divine  guid- 
ance a  demoralized  state  of  Catholicism  which 


Religious  Prejudice  8i 

4 

keen-eyed  observers,  who  resided  in  these  re- 
spective place  for  years,  had  failed  to  observe. 
Nay,  not  only  do  they  emphasize  the  supposed 
demoralization  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but 
they  insist  with  many  loud  clamors  that  noth- 
ing will  save  these  countries  but  the  pure 
gospel  of  Protestantism,  and  the  heaven-born 
blessing  of  our  Public  School  system.  And 
what  is  the  source  of  all  this  outcry?  Does 
it  proceed  from  a  willful  misapprehension  of 
facts?  Is  it  but  a  deliberate  attempt  at  black- 
mailing? I  do  not  think  SQ.  I  have  too 
much  respect  for  the  authors  of  these  false 
reports  to  entertain  such  an  idea  even  for  a 
moment.  I  give  them  credit  for  being  well- 
meaning  men  and  women,  but  they  are  blinded 
by  prejudice.  They  set  out  on  their  voyages 
of  discovery  fully  determined  to  catch  the 
Catholic  Church  at  playing  the  role  which  Pro- 
testant traditions  have  ascribed  tO'  her  for  the 
last  three  hundred  years,  and  thus  viewing 
everything  through  the  distorting  medium  of 
prejudice,  they  easily  found  what  they  sought, 
and  then,  in  their  charity  for  their  neighbor 
and  zeal  for  the  pure  gospel,  they  generously 
shared  their  discovery  with  a  gullible  public. 
This,  then,  is  religious  prejudice  as  we  find 


82  Religious  Prejudice 

it  in  its  concrete  form  to-day.  It  is  a  preju- 
dice that  holds  the  hearts  of  well-meaning  men 
and  women  encased  in  a  coat  of  mail  which 
no  argument  can  pierce  and  no  logic  can  shat- 
ter; yet  what  mere  reasoning  can  not  accom- 
plish, may  still  be  effected  by  the  warmth  of 
God's  love  and  the  gentle  force  of  divine 
grace,  and  in  sole  reliance  on  this,  shall  I  ven- 
ture to  deal  with  the  various  phases  of  reli- 
gious prejudice  in  the  following  discussions. 


I 


11. 


THE     ANCIENT     CHURCH     AND     MODERN     FREE- 
THOUGHT. 

There  is  a  general  persuasion  among  Pro- 
testants to  the  effect  that  the  CathoHc  Church 
])laces  undue  restraint  on  freedom  of  thought. 
According  to  their  view  of  the  matter,  Catho- 
lics are  bound  to  think  as  the  Pope  thinks; 
lu  judge  as  he  judges ;  to  approve  what  he  ap- 
proves, and  to  condemn  what  he  condemns. 
Whether  there  be  question  of  Faith  or  Sci- 
ence, Philosophy  or  Politics,  in  one  way  or 
another,  Rome  must  sound  the  keynote  before 
any  Catholic,  lay  or  cleric,  man  or  woman, 
(lares  express  an  opinion.  Hence  they  con- 
clude, not  only  that  we  are  perpetually  ham- 
pered in  every  effort  of  mental  progress,  but 
that  we  basely  abdicate  the  freedom  which  is 
the  birthright  of  every  rational  being,  and 
become  intellectual  bond-slaves  to  an  individ- 
ual who  is  perhaps  much  our  inferior  in  men- 
83 


§4      The  Church  and  Freethought 

tal  attainments.  Consequently,  if  nothing  else 
could  be  brought  against  the  Catholic  Church, 
this  alone  would  be  sufficient  to  condemn  her 
in  an  age  when  freedom  of  thought  is  the 
acknowledged  right  of  even  the  lowest  sav- 
age. 

This  certainly  looks  like  a  formidable  ar- 
raignment, and  if  it  can  be  sustained,  the 
Catholic  Church  is  decidedly  out  of  tune  with 
modern  conditions  of  things.  If  Catholics  are 
in  such  absolute  subjection  to  their  ecclesias- 
tical superiors  that  they  can  have  practically 
no  mind  of  their  own,  I  do  not  blame  anyone 
for  having  an  unfavorable  opinion  of  their 
Church.  Xay,  if  matters  stand  thus,  I  have 
nothing  further  to  say,  unless  it  be  to  express 
my  regret  that  I  have  the  misfortune  of  be- 
ing a  Catholic.  For  such  slavery  there  is  war- 
rant neither  in  the  Bible  nor  in  Tradition, 
whilst  reason  rejects  it  as  unbearable  des- 
potism. But  is  this  the  actual  condition  of 
things?  Or  is  it  simply  a  distorted  view  of 
the  matter  as  seen  through  the  medium  of  re- 
ligious prejudice  ?  To  this  query  a  well-mean- 
ing Catholic,  justly  indignant  at  imputations 
so  unreasonable,  once  made  a  reply,  that  the 
Church  interferes  no  more  with  the  freedom  of 


The  Church  and  Freethought      85 

thought  than  the  multiplication  table  interferes 
with  mathematical  calculations.  Possibly  he 
yet  he  was  as  near  the  truth  as  his  Protestant 
found  it  somewhat  difficult  to  sustain  his  view, 
adversary  who  charged  him  with  intellectual 
slavery.  As  usual,  the  full  truth  lies  midway, 
as  I  shall  now  endeavor  to  make  clear. 

To  form  a  correct  judgment  of  this  matter, 
we  mttst  first  of  all  bear  in  mind  that  the 
Catholic  Church  claims  to  have  received  au- 
thority from  her  Divine  Founder  to  teach  all 
tilings  whatsoever  He  commanded.  The  va- 
lidity of  this  claim  she  proves  by  arguments 
that  are  calculated  to  convince  anyone  who 
i^ives  the  matter  serious  thought,  and  who  is 
disposed  to  acknowledge  the  truth  wherever 
Ire  may  find  it.  In  this  capacity  of  divinely 
appointed  teacher,  she  exercises  the  right  and 
discharges  the  duty  of  watching  over  the  faith 
and  morals  of  her  members.  Now  as  faith 
and  morality  find  expression,  not  only  in  ex- 
terior conduct,  but  also  in  thought  and  volition, 
the  Church  must  necessarily  claim  authority 
to  place  restrictions  upon  both,  in  order  to 
carry  out  the  intentions  of  her  Divine  Founder. 

First,  then,  I  readily  grant  that  the  Church 
does  place  a  certain  restraint  upon  freedom 


86      The  Church  and  Freethought 

of  thought;  but  I  contend  that  this  restraint 
is  exercised  along  Hues  where  freedom  of 
thought  is  in  the  very  nature  of  things  illegi- 
timate. Whenever  the  Church  makes  any  re- 
strictions, it  is  always  a  question  of  faith  or 
morals.  Now  as  regards  morals,  I  do  not 
think  that  the  matter  is  open  for  discussion ; 
for  since  the  Church  does  practically  noth- 
ing more  than  enforce  the  commandments  of 
the  decalogue,  as  applied  to  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, no  one  can  find  fault  with  her  on 
that  score.  Moreover  if  there  be  any  points 
that  would  seem  to  admit  of  dispute,  they  are 
all  reducible  to  the  question  of  faith.  Hence 
as  I  take  for  granted  that  my  readers  have  the 
greatest  reverence  for  the  decalogue,  I  think 
it  superfluous  to  justify  the  Church  when  she 
endeavors  by  every  means  in  her  power  to 
enforce  the  observance  of  its  commandments. 
Consequently  the  discussion  can  legitimately 
be  restricted  to  the  authority  which  the  Church 
exercises  in  matters  of  faith. 

In  respect  to  this  point,  the  Church  main- 
tains that  her  authority  is  final,  so  that  her 
decisions  are  not  subject  to  correction  by  any 
one  of  her  children,  no  matter  what  be  his 
learning    and    erudition.     Hence    cencerning 


The  Church  and  Freethought      87 

such  truths  as  have  certainly  been  revealed, 
and  therefore  are  evidently  contained  in  the 
sacred  deposit  of  faith,  she  does  not  allow 
her  children  to  theorize.  Thus,  for  instance, 
the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  necessity  of  Bap- 
tism for  salvation,  the  Real  Presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  other  re- 
vealed truths  already  established  as  certain, 
no  Catholic  may  call  in  question.  The  faith- 
ful have  full  liberty  to  study  these  truths ; 
they  may  try  to  understand  them  more  per- 
fectly ;  they  may  even  excogitate  difficulties 
and  urge  objections ;  they  may  discuss  the 
matter  in  learned  books  or  popular  treatises : 
but  in  whatever  they  do  they  must  see  to  it 
that  the  truth  once  established  as  certain  be 
never  made  a  matter  of  doubt.  In  this,  if  you 
will,  there  is  a  certain  restraint ;  freedom  of 
thought  is  interfered  with  to  some  extent;  but 
doesn't  it  strike  you  that  this  restraint  is  after 
all  very  much  like  that  which  a  sensible  teacher 
puts  upon  his  pupils  with  regard  to  the  mul- 
tiplication table?  He  is  quite  willing  to  let 
them  work  all  sorts  of  examples;  he  takes 
special  delight  in  proposing  to  them  a  vast 
variety  of  problems ;  he  is  greatly  pleased  if 
they  devise  ways  ana  methods  of  their  own: 


88      The  Church  and  Freethought 

but  in  all  their  work,  in  their  every  solution, 
he  insists  upon  profound  respect  for  the  mul- 
tiplication table.  If  one  of  his  young  charges 
discovers,  for  instance,  that  two  times  two 
makes  five,  instead  of  the  traditional  four,  no 
matter  how  brilliant  an  intellectual  feat  the 
young  genius  may  consider  his  discovery,  the 
teacher  is  inexorable,  and  gives  him  an  author- 
itative warning  that  such  departures  from  well- 
established  traditions  must  not  recur  in  future. 
Of  course,  the  hapless  discoverer  may  take 
this  warning  very  much  amiss ;  he  may  pout 
and  grumble  and  express  his  disgust  with 
the  old  school  where  such  restraint  is  put  upon 
budding  genius :  but  all  to  no  purpose ;  the 
teacher  insists  upon  seeing  four  in  the  result 
whenever  the  factors  are  two  and  two.  Nor 
does  the  community  that  engaged  his  services 
find  any  fault  with  his  apparent  intellectual 
despotism.  In  fact,  were  he  to  accommodate 
himself  in  this  matter  to  the  advanced  thought 
of  his  pupils,  he  would  soon  receive  notice  to 
look  for  some  other  field  of  usefulness.  He 
would  be  altogether  too  progressive  for  men 
who  hold  that  truth  is  truth  till  the  end  of 
reckoning. 

The  parity  between  the  action  of  the  teacher 


The  Church  and  Freethought      89 

just  referred  to,  and  the  course  pursued  by 
the  Church  in  matters  of  faith,  lies  in  this, 
that  as  the  multipUcation  table  is  but  an  ex- 
pression of  certain  natural  truths  which  admit 
of  no  change,  so  also  is  the  teaching  of  the 
Church  but  an  outward  manifestation  of  super- 
natural truths  that  are  absolutely  unchange- 
able. The  fact  is,  wherever  truth  is  recog- 
nized as  certain,  freedom  of  thought  ceases. 
This  follows  necessarily  from  the  laws  that 
govern  our  mental  operations.  Thus,  for  in- 
stance, when  I  look  at  my  watch,  my  senses 
.  refer  an  image  of  it  to  the  brain;  my  intellect 
receives  that  image  as  presented ;  it  recog- 
nizes in  it  all  that  is  predicated  of  a  watch, 
and  it  is  compelled  by  its  own  nature  to  form 
the  judgment:  "This  is  a  watch."  It  is  not 
at  liberty  to  conclude  that  it  is  a  horse,  or 
a  steam  engine.  And  so  in  all  other  cases, 
wherever  the  intellect  recognizes  truth,  there 
freedom  of  thought  is  out  of  place. 

Hence  in  regard  to  revealed  truths  that  are 
quite  certain,  the  Church  justly  requires  that 
her  children  should  think  as  she  thinks.  In 
this  she  does  not  interfere  with  freedom  of 
thought.  To  demand  that  even  in  regard  to 
these    certain    truths    she    should    allow    her 


90      The  Church  and  Freethought 

children  to  think  as  they  please,  would  be 
just  as  absurd  as  to  require  of  a  teacher  to 
allow  his  pupils  to  follow  their  own  foolish 
fancies  with  respect  to  the  multiplication  table. 
You  will  perhaps  say  that  Protestant  Churches 
are  much  more  liberal  in  this  matter.  So  they 
are :  but  what  does  that  show  ?  That  they 
have  greater  regard  for  intellectual  freedom? 
No :  not  at  all.  It  only  shows  that  they  are 
not  convinced  of  possessing  the  truth.  When 
Protestant  Churches  permit  their  members  to 
entertain  their  own  private  views  concerning 
revealed  truths,  they  openly  confess  that  these 
truths  are  not  at  all  certain.  If  they  hold  any- 
thing else,  they  simply  stultify  themselves  by 
the  implicit  declaration  that  in  their  Churches 
it  matters  not  whether  one  believes  truth  or 
falsehood.  Hence  so  far  from  blaming  the 
Catholic  Church  for  denying  freedom  of 
thought  in  regard  to  well  established  religious 
truths,  they  should  rather  acknowledge  her 
as  the  only  true  Church,  for  in  this  she  alone 
is  in  full  accord  with  reason  and  common 
sense. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  Church  extends 
her  restrictions  not  only  to  truths  that  are 
well  established  and  certain,  but  also  to  others 


The  Church  and  Freethought      91 

about  which  she  herself  has  as  yet  made  no 
final  decision.  Nay,  she  even  leaves  her  own 
proper  sphere,  which  is  limited  to  revealed 
truths,  and  claims  supervision  over  the  study 
of  philosophy  and  the  sciences;  yet  such  re- 
striction and  supervision  must  necessarily  in- 
terfere with  freedom  of  thought.  Hence, 
granted  that  she  is  completely  within  her 
own  rights  when  she  keeps  vigilant  watch 
and  ward  over  the  faith,  she  is  certainly 
meddling  in  affairs  not  her  own  when  she 
reaches  out  to  what  lies  beyond  the  bounds 
of  revelation.  In  this  she  cannot  fall  back 
upon  the  multiplication  table  to  justify  her 
actions. 

In  answer  to  this,  I  again  grant  that  the 
Church  extends  her  authority  beyond  the 
bounds  of  what  is  strictly  supernatural  and 
absolutely  certain.  I  also  concede  that  she 
cannot  appeal  directly  to  the  multiplication 
table  as  a  justifying  reason;  but  I  deny  the 
inference  that  she  meddles  in  affairs  not  her 
own,  and  that  she  interferes  with  legitimate 
freedom  of  thought.  To  make  this  matter 
clear,  let  me  ask  you  to  transport  yourselves 
in  spirit  to  any  convenient  place  on  the  sea- 
shore :  to  some  harbor  or  port,  for  instance. 


92      The  Church  and  Freethought 

where  ships  are  constantly  arriving  from  dis- 
tant shores,  and  whence  they  are  departing 
for  lands  beyond  the  sea.  As  you  stand  there, 
you  see  before  you  the  broad  and  heaving 
ocean,  with  its  billows  and  its  waves,  bound- 
less in  expanse  and  fathomless  in  depth.  At 
the  entrance  of  the  harbor  and  all  along  the 
coast,  you  notice  bright-colored  objects,  sta- 
tionary, indeed,  yet  rising  and  falling  with  the 
sea.  If  you  have  but  a  little  patience,  you  will 
also  observe  how  every  ship  that  enters  the 
harbor  or  leaves  it,  or  cruises  along  the  coast- 
line, directs  her  course  in  reference  to  those 
bright,  bobbing  objects,  or  buoys  as  they  are 
called.  Now  I  ask  you,  is  the  freedom  of  these 
ships  interfered  with  by  said  buoys?  You 
will  answer,  yes,  in  a  certain  sense  it  is.  It 
seems  that  no  ship  ever  ventures  to  approach 
that  part  of  the  sea  where  they  keep  watch. 
And  what,  do  you  think,  is  the  reason?  If 
you  don't  know,  just  ask  the  pilot  as  he  guides 
his  ship  past  one  of  them.  He  will  answer 
that  they  are  danger  signals,  and  to  disregard 
them  would  mean  death  and  disaster ;  for  they 
are  moored  to  jagged  rocks  and  treacherous 
shoals  barely  covered  by  the  water.  If  you 
are  not  satisfied  yet,  ask  him  again,  if  he  does 


The  Church  and  Freethought      93 

not  consider  it  an  impertinence  on  the^part  of 
the  civil  authorities  to  have  put  up  these  sig- 
nals, and  so  to  hamper  his  course?  Most 
likely  his  only  answer  would  be  a  look  of  sur- 
prise, asking  as  plainly  as  words  could  do : 
*'  Why  aren't  you  shut  up  in  a  lunatic  asy- 
lum?'' 

Apply  all  this  to  the  action  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  respect  to  studies  which  are  not 
directly  concerned  with  truths  evidently  of 
faith  or  absolutely  certain.  Beyond  these 
truths  there  extends  a  vast  ocean  of  unex- 
plored probabilities,  over  which  the  Church 
allows  her  children  to  roam  as  reason  or 
good  sense  may  direct.  She  enforces  no  defin- 
ite system  of  philosophy,  nor  enjoins  any  par- 
ticular method  of  scientific  investigation ;  all 
this  she  leaves  to  men  who  have  a  liking  and 
genius  for  that  sort  of  thing;  but  when  con- 
clusions are  arrived  at  that  are  not  warranted 
by  facts  and  run  counter  to  the  truths  over 
which  she  keeps  guard,  she  sounds  the  alarm, 
and  bids  investigators  beware  lest  they  run 
upon  hidden  rocks  and  shoals,  and  thus  lose 
the  fruit  of  all  their  labor.  Hence  her  super- 
vision is  directive  as  well  as  restrictive.  She 
points   out   the   dangers   that   threaten   short- 


94      The  Church  and  Freethought 

sighted  human  reason,  when  completely  left  to 
its  own  invention.  Nor  yet  is  she  contented 
with  this  negative  help  which  she  extends  to 
all  human  efforts;  but  like  a  lighthouse  built 
on  a  jutting  promontory,  she  points  the  way  to 
safety  and  success.  The  very  fact  that  she 
emphasizes  truths  which  cannot  be  called  in 
question,  is  a  positive  help  towards  the  dis- 
covery of  other  truths  which  lie  still  hidden 
in  unexplored  regions.  Thus  her  stout  de- 
fense of  the  existence  of  a  spiritual  world, 
not  only  saves  her  children  from  wasting  their 
time  and  energy  in  the  vain  effort  to  construct 
an  agnostic  philosophy  and  rr^aterialistic  sci- 
ence, but  enables  them  to  bring  both  philoso- 
phy and  science  into  harmony  with  the  cer- 
tain teachings  of  faith,  and  thus  prepare  the 
way  for  the  discovery  of  facts  and  relations 
which  otherwise  would  have  remained  unde- 
tected for  ages.  As  Mr.  Mallock,  a  well 
known  Protestant  writer,  so  pointedly  puts  it: 
*'  The  infallible  teaching  authority  of  the 
Church  is  not  a  fetter  only  ;  it  is  a  support  also ; 
and  those  who  cling  to  it  can  venture  fear- 
lessly, as  explorers,  into  currents  of  specula- 
tion that  would  sweep  away  altogether  men 
who  did  but  trust  to  their  own  powers  of  swim- 


The  Church  and  Freethought       95 

ming."     (Is  Life  Worth  Living?  c.  XII,  p. 
310.) 

If  you  will,  all  this  imposes  a  certain  re- 
straint; but  it  is  a  restraint  upon  license,  not 
upon  freedom.  The  Catholic  philosopher  is  not 
at  liberty  to  play  fast  and  loose  with  the  im- 
mutable principles  of  knowledge,  and  thus 
by  hook  and  by  crook  arrive  at  the  conclusion 
that  all  being  centers  in  his  own  little  self,  that 
he  is  the  one  and  the  all,  and  that  he  is  account- 
able to  no  one  except  to  his  own  metaphysical 
idea  of  right  and  wrong.  Nor  is  the  Catholic 
scientist  permitted  to  juggle  with  observed 
facts  in  such  wise  that  he  is  enabled  to  derive 
from  them  plausible  arguments,  whereby  he 
persuades  himself  that  he  is  but  a  half-baked 
statue  of  clay,  differing  only  from  the  clod 
which  he  spurns  with  his  foot  in  the  more 
complex  combination  of  the  constituent  atoms. 
Neither  has  the  Catholic  moralist  leave  from 
his  Church  to  interpret  the  precepts  of  the 
decalogue  in  a  manner  that  eliminates  all 
objective  distinction  between  virtue  and  vice ; 
that  puts  falsehood  on  a  par  with  truth,  and 
drags  down  the  fair  form  of  purity  into  the 
loathsome  mire  of  lust.  Yes,  such  restraint 
there  is;  but  who,  whether  Catholic  or  Prot- 


96      The  Church  and  Freethought 

estant,  would  dare  to  make  that  a  matter  of 
complaint?  It  is  only  the  infidel,  the  ma- 
terialist, the  libertine,  who  can  consistently 
chafe  under  such  restraint. 

And  here  it  is  in  place  to  remark,  that  this 
fetish  of  the  modern  world,  which  is  set  up 
for  adoration  in  the  sanctum  of  our  printing 
establishments,  and  is  carried  about  as  a  totem 
by  men  and  women  who  call  themselves  edu- 
cated, is  the  vilest  of  impostors.  It  is  not 
freedom  of  thought,  but  treason  to  truth ;  a 
base  betrayal  of  man's  reasonable  nature, 
which  bids  him  respect  truth  in  all  its  bear- 
ings. Man's  reason  is  so  constituted  that  he 
must  recognize  the  truth  of  certain  principles, 
unless  blinded  by  the  influence  of  a  perverted 
will.  Yet  in  the  recognition  of  truth  his  free- 
dom of  thought  becomes  limited.  The  mo- 
ment he  finds  that  a  certain  proposition  is  true, 
he  is  no  longer  at  liberty  to  cling  to  its  con- 
tradictory ;  for  that  means  assent  to  falsehood. 
Hence  the  more  extensive  a  man's  knowledge 
grows,  the  more  restricted  becomes  his  free- 
dom of  thought.  Now  these  very  men  who 
raise  the  hue  and  cry  against  the  Catholic 
Church,  because  she  places  certain  restrictions 
upon  the  thoughts  of  her  children,  pose  before 


The  Church  and  Freethought      97 

the  world  as  the  wisest  of  their  generation. 
They  talk  and  write  as  if  they  knew  all  that's 
worth  knowing,  and  yet  they  demand  perfect 
liberty  to  think  as  they  please !  Do  they  not 
stultify  themselves  by  making  demands  that 
are  rendered  impossible  by  the  very  laws  of 
thought?  Do  they  not  betray  their  own  rea- 
sonable nature  by  sacrificing  reason  upon  the 
altar  of  passion  ?  Freedom  of  thought,  as 
understood  by  the  opponents  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  means  license  to  think  about  anything 
and  everything  just  as  one  pleases;  yet  this 
can  be  done  only  in  one  of  two  cases:  First, 
when  a  person  has  no  certain  knowledge  about 
anything,  and  so  it  doesn't  matter  much  what 
he  thinks;  secondly,  when  he  fancies,  indeed, 
that  he  has  certain  knowledge  of  things,  but 
by  a  deliberate  betrayal  of  his  own  reasonable 
nature  makes  liimself  completely  indifferent 
to  truth  and  falsehood,  so  that  he  would  as 
soon  give  his  intellectual  assent  to  a  lie  as  to 
an  acknowledgment  of  the  truth.  Neither  of 
which  positions  affords  matter  for  boasting. 
Furthermore,  as  this  pretended  freedom  of 
thought  is  an  insult  to  right  reason,  so  also 
is  it  the  undoing  of  virtue.  For  freedom  of 
thought  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 


qS      The  Church  and  Freethought 

lead  to  free  expression  of  thought.  The  one 
is  conditioned  by  the  other.  If  a  man  can 
think  as  he  pleases,  he  can  speak  and  write 
as  he  pleases.  If  he  thinks  that  man  is  but 
a  groveling  animal,  and  therefore  at  liberty 
to  satisfy  his  brutish  cravings  without  re- 
straint, what  is  there  to  prevent  him  from 
preaching  his  gospel  of  lust  to  the  nations, 
and  so  reduce  the  world  to  a  state  of  moral  de- 
pravity for  which  the  Cities  of  the  Plain  were 
consumed  by  fire  and  brimstone  ?  If  he  thinks 
that  all  authority,  whether  human  or  divine, 
is  unjustifiable  tyranny,  why  may  he  not  give 
expression  to  these  thoughts,  and  so  prepare 
the  way  for  universal  anarchy?  Perhaps  you 
say,  outward  expression  -  of  thought  must 
necessarily  be  restrained  by  law,  for  without 
such  restraint  social  order  is  impossible. 
True:  but  on  what  principles  will  you  base 
your  restraint,  if  you  concede  to  every  one  the 
right  to  think  as  he  pleases  ?  What  is  rightly 
thought  can  be  rightly  expressed ;  for  if  a 
man  has  a  right  to  believe  what  is  false,  he 
must  have  a  right  to  do  what  is  evil :  the  one 
is  correlative  of  the  other. 

Nor  is  this  mere  theorizing.     Men  who  ad- 
yocate   this   false   freedom  of   thought   never 


The  Church  and  Freethought      99 

dream  of  putting  restraint  upon  its  outward 
expression.  Hence  it  is  that  from  the  print- 
ing presses  of  the  world  there  pours  forth  day 
by  day  a  stream  of  pollution  that  poisons  the 
very  atmosphere,  and  falls  like  a  blight  upon 
heart  and  home.  A  great  part  of  what  is 
called  literature  is  but  a  mass  of  reeking  foul- 
ness, which  no  pure-minded  men  or  women 
can  read  without  feeling  the  blush  of  shame 
burning  like  fire  upon  their  cheeks.  Whilst 
works  of  more  serious  pretensions  frequently 
teem  with  views  so  atheistical  and  blasphem- 
ous that  even  pagan  censors  would  have  con- 
demned the  writers  to  perpetual  banishment. 
This  is  the  freedom  of  thought  against  which 
the  Catholic  Church,  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  her  Divine  Founder,  utters  her 
solemn  "  Thou  shalt  not :  ^-  thou  shalt  not  kill 
thy  brother's  soul;  thou  shalt  not  blaspheme 
the  Lord  thy  God !  "  Will  you  blame  her  for 
it?  If  not,  then  do  not  accuse  her  of  intel- 
lectual despotism;  for  she  puts  restraint  only 
upon  a  license,  not  upon  liberty. 


III. 

TOLERATION    AND    INTOLERANCE. 

The  restraint  which  the  CathoHc  Church 
places  upon  freedom  of  thought,  is  something 
for  which  all  Catholics  have  reason  to  be  sin- 
cerely thankful.  For  this  restraint  is  on  the 
part  of  the  Church  an  open  and  bold  profes- 
sion that  she  is  in  conscious  possession  of  the 
truth  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals.  Besides 
it  is  practically  the  only  force  that  counter- 
acts the  downward  trend  of  modern  religious 
thought,  and  thus  is  instrumental  in  saving 
Christianity  from  degenerating  into  a  refined 
form  of  paganism,  towards  which  the  non- 
Catholic  world  is  rushing  without  let  or  hinder- 
ance.  Hence  if  but  rightly  understood,  the 
authority  exercised  by  the  Catholic  Church 
in  respect  to  freedom  of  thought  can  give 
offense  to  no  one;  for  in  reality  it  is  not  a 
restraint  upon  freedom,  but  upon  license. 

There  are,  however,  not  wanting  men  who 

100 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       ioi 

shrug  their  shoulders  at  all  this,  and  say  that 
theoretically  the  Catholic  Church  may  be  right, 
but  considering  the  matter  practically  she  is 
decidedly  wrong.  For  whatever  may  be  said 
in  behalf  of  her  authority  in  matters  of  faith 
and  morals,  it  is  quite  certain  that  she  has 
no  right  to  carry  her  pretensions  to  authority 
so  far  as  to  take  away  freedom  of  conscience ; 
yet  every  one  knows  that  she  aims  at  nothing 
less,  seeing  that  she  makes  religious  intoler- 
ance an  essential  article  of  her  creed.  Not 
only  does  she  maintain  that  her  own  doctrines 
are  true,  but  she  condemns  the  beliefs  of  all 
other  denominations  as  false.  She  is  not  sat- 
isfied with  claiming  unrestrained  freedom  to 
preach  and  teach  and  worship  after  her  own 
fashion,  but  like  the  dog  in  the  manger,  she 
will  not  allow  any  one  else  to  touch  what  she 
herself  cannot  use.  Nay,  worse  still,  she  car- 
ries her  pretensions  even  beyond  the  bounds 
of  space  and  time,  claiming  an  exclusive  title 
to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  thus  assigns 
to  Protestants  and  Jews  and  Gentiles  a  por- 
tion in  that  place  where  everlasting  horror 
dwelleth.  This  is  not  authority,  but  tyranny ; 
it  is  intolerance  carried  to  its  extreme  limit, 
and  therefore  theorize  as  you  please,  in  prac- 


102       Toleration"  and  Intolerance 

tice  the  Catholic  Church  stands  for  intellectual 
and  religious  despotism. 

This  is,  I  believe,  a  fair  statement  of  the 
Protestant  charge  of  intolerance  urged  against 
the  Catholic  Church.  It  is  a  charge  that  has 
come  down  to  us  from  the  very  birth  of  Pro- 
testantism, and  is  urged  with  fresh  vigor  in 
our  own  day,  wdien  religious  indifference 
makes  non-Catholics  tolerant  of  almost  any 
form  of  belief  and  worship.  Nor  is  the  charge 
wholly  without  foundation ;  for  the  Catholic 
Church  is  and  always  will  be  intolerant,  though 
in  quite  a  different  sense  from  that  which  is 
implied  in  the  charge  brought  against  us  by 
our  non-Catholic  brethren.  To  understand 
this  matter  properly,  we  must  first  say  a  word 
about  the  different  forms  of  intolerance,  at 
least  in  so  far  as  it  has  a  direct  bearing  upon 
the  subject  in  hand. 

Intolerance  is  twofold :  civil  and  dogmatic. 
Civil  intolerance  finds  expression  in  the  enact- 
ment of  laws  against  forms  of  worship  which 
are  at  variance  with  the  religion  of  the  country 
in  question.  Of  this  we  find  an  instance  in 
the  case  of  Catholic  Spain,  where  until  a  few 
years  ago  Protestants  were  not  allowed  to 
build  churches,  and  hold  public  religious  meet- 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       103 

ings.  Similar  instances  we  meet  with  in  coun- 
tries under  Protestant  rule,  as,  for  example, 
in  England,  where  during  the  time  of  the  penal 
laws  all  Catholic  worship  was  prohibited,  and 
Catholic  subjects  were  compelled  under  pain 
of  exorbitant  fines,  to  attend  Protestant  wor- 
ship. This  form  of  intolerance  extends  itself 
not  rarely  to  purely  civil  affairs,  in  as  much 
as  it  restricts  those  not  of  the  fold  in  the  un- 
disturbed enjoyment  of  their  rights  as  free 
citizens;  excludes  them  from  participation  in 
the  government  of  the  state ;  closes  up  against 
them  all  places  of  honor  and  positions  of 
trust ;  makes  of  them  Helots  and  serfs,  hewers 
of  wood  and  carriers  of  water,  and  leaves  them 
nothing  but  death  to  look  forward  to  as  a  de- 
liverance from  their  thraldom.  Of  this  ex- 
treme phase  of  civil  intolerance  we  had,  up  to 
comparatively  recent  times,  a  most  striking 
example  in  Ireland,  where  through  religious 
motives  a  whole  nation  was  reduced  to  a  con- 
dition of  civil  serfdom. 

Dogmatic  intolerance,  on  the  other  hand, 
concerns  itself  directly  only  with  doctrinal 
teaching,  and  finds  expression  in  the  pulpit 
rather  than  in  legislative  halls.  It  is  essen- 
tially opposed  to  religious  indifferentism,  and 


I04      Toleration  and  Intolerance 

defends  its  position  on  the  ground  that  there 
can  be  only  one  true  religion.  Hence  as  truth 
is  necessarily  intolerant  of  falsehood,  any 
Church  that  considers  herself  the  sole  repre- 
sentative of  the  true  religion  must  ipso  facto 
open  the  doors  to  dogmatic  intolerance.  In 
respect  to  civil  affairs  such  a  Church  may 
work  hand  in  hand  with  otlicr  denominations, 
but  when  there  is  question  of  doctrine,  fellow- 
ship becomes  impossible ;  because  truth  can 
make  no  compromise  with  falsehood. 

This  being  premised,  we  may  now  inquire 
to  what  extent  the  charge  of  intolerance,  urged 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  can  he  sustained. 
As  is  plain,  the  matter  lends  itself  easily  to 
an  historical  treatment ;  because  intolerance 
manifests  itself  outwardly,  and  must,  there- 
fore, leave  its  record  on  the  pages  of  history. 
Yet  I  shall  not  treat  it  historically,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  such  treatment  would  re- 
quire, not  one  discussion  only,  but  at  least  a 
dozen,  since  each  single  charge  would  have 
to  be  considered  separately.  Of  course,  in 
taking  this  stand,  I  lay  myself  open  to  the  sus- 
picion of  being  afraid  to  remove  the  veil  from 
the  dead  past,  lest  I  should  expose  to  view 
the  proverbial  skeleton  in  the  closet.     Still  this 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       105 

suspicion,  I  believe,  may  be  removed  in  a  very 
summary  manner.  First  of  all  I  maintain, 
without  any  fear  of  being  proved  in  the  wrong, 
that  the  past  offers  not  a  single  instance  of 
unjustifiable  intolerance  which  can  be  imputed 
to  the  Catholic  Church  as  a  religious  organiz- 
ation. Catholic  kings  and  emperors,  magis- 
trates and  governors,  have  persecuted  and  op- 
pressed other  religious  denominations  that 
were  already  peaceably  established  in  the  exer- 
cise of  their  rights,  but  whenever  that  hap- 
pened, they  acted  without  the  sanction  of  their 
Church.  The  Church  herself  has  always 
maintained,  as  she  maintains  to-day,  that  "  it 
is  sinful  to  force  people  to  join  her  com- 
munion, or  to  punish  for  heresy  or  false  re- 
ligion, those  outside  her  fold."  She  has  al- 
ways put  into  practice  the  words  of  St.  Paul : 
"  What  have  I  to  do  with  judging  them  that 
are  outside?  Them  that  are  outside  God  will 
judge."  (I  Cor.  v.,  12,  13.)  I  know  some 
will  say  that  all  this  is  mere  theory;  that  in 
practice  the  Church  has  followed  quite  a  dif- 
ferent course.  For,  not  to  mention  other  in- 
stances of  intolerance,  did  she  not  give  her 
sanction  to  the  war  against  the  Albigenses? 
Certainly  she  did:  but,  my  friends,  did  you 


io6       Toleration  and  Intolerance 

ever  read  an  unbiased  history  of  that  war? 
If  you  did,  you  know  as  well  as  I  do,  that 
on  the  Catholic  side  it  was  simply  a  question 
of  self-defense.  Suppose  that  some  thousand 
fanatics  were  to  pour  into  this  fair  city  of 
St.  Louis,  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing a  new  religion,  and  that,  in  order  to 
carry  their  purpose  the  more  speedily  into  ef- 
fect, they  were  to  burn  down  your  churches, 
murder  your  priests  and  ministers,  and  out- 
rage your  wives  and  daughters,  doing  away  as 
far  as  they  could  with  all  law  and  order,  would 
you  blame  any  Church  authority  for  urging 
the  civil  magistrates  to  use  effective  measures 
in  order  to  suppress  such  violence?  If  you 
would  not,  please  don't  blame  the  Catholic 
Church  for  having  sanctioned  the  war  against 
the  Albigenses ;  for  these  sectaries  perpetrated 
crimes  much  more  horrible  than  those  which 
I  have  mentioned,  and  the  war  against  them 
was  not  sanctioned  by  the  Church  until  all 
other  measures  to  keep  them  within  the  bounds 
of  law  and  order  had  utterly  failed.  Similarly 
in  every  other  instance  where  the  Church  lent 
her  authority  to  severe  measures  taken  against 
persons  not  of  her  fold ;  it  was  always  in  the 
defense  of  law  and  order,  to  protect   rights 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       107 

which  no  one  could  call  in  question.  Other 
persecutions  she  did  not  sanction,  because  she 
held  that  them  not  of  the  fold  God  would 
judge. 

Likely  enough  some  will  say,  it  matters  lit- 
tle whether  these  persecutions  were  sanctioned 
by  the  Church  or  not,  they  will  always  remain 
eloquent  witnesses  to  Catholic  intolerance.  To 
this  I  answer  that  many  of  these  eloquent  wit- 
nesses might  be  silenced  in  very  short  order, 
if  by  a  sort  of  cross  examination  the  true 
story  were  dragged  from  their  lying  lips ;  for 
there  are  many  false  witnesses,  and  their  tes- 
timony doth  not  agree.  However,  as  there 
is  no  time  for  this  now,  I  shall  close  the  case 
by  an  argument  of  recrimination.  It  is  this : 
Every  instance  of  intolerance  that  you  can 
bring  against  Catholics,  I  will  meet  with  a 
similar  instance  against  Protestants,  and  when 
you  have  come  to  your  last  one,  I  shall  still 
have  a  score  to  spare.  If  you  point  to  the 
persecution  of  the  Jews  and  Moors  in  Spain, 
I  point  to  a  much  more  atrocious  persecution 
of  Catholics  in  England.  If  you  complain  of 
legislation  against  Protestants  in  France  and 
Austria  and  other  Catholic  countries,  I  respond 
by  complaining  of  a  like  legislation   against 


io8      Toleration  and  Intolerance 

Catholics  in  Prussia  and  Sweden  and  every 
other  Protestant  country  on  the  face  of  the 
earth.  If  you  instance  the  cruelties  resorted 
to  by  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  I  bring  forward 
similar  cruelties  practiced  by  the  Genevan  In- 
quisition of  Calvin,  and  the  Court  of  High 
Commission  of  Elizabeth.  Hence  if  you  must 
call  Catholics  intolerant,  be  it  so,  but  do  unto 
yourselves  as  you  do  to  others,  and  there  will 
be  no  cause  for  quarrel. 

Finally,  to  take  away  all  anxiety  lest  I 
should  somehow  have  played  you  a  trick,  I  in- 
vite your  attention  to  the  following  extract 
taken  from  the  work  of  a  Protestant  writer, 
who  cannot  be  suspected  of  bias  in  favor  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  The  writer  in  question 
is  W.  E.  Lecky,  who  in  his  book  entitled, 
"  Rationalism  in  Europe,"  has  this  to  say 
about  Protestant  intolerance.  "  What  shall 
we  say  of  a  church  that  was  but  a  thing  of 
yesterday ;  a  church  that  had  as  yet  no  service 
to  show,  no  claims  upon  the  gratitude  of  man- 
kind; a  church  that  was  by  profession  the 
creature  of  private  judgment,  and  was  in  re- 
ality generated  by  the  intrigues  of  a  corrupt 
court,  which  nevertheless  suppressed  by  force 
worship  that  multitudes  deemed  necessary  for 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       109 

their  salvation,  and  by  all  her  organs,  and 
with  all  her  energies,  persecuted  those  who 
clung  to  the  religion  of  their  fathers?  What 
shall  we  say  of  a  religion  which  comprised  at 
most  but  a  fourth  part  of  the  Christian  world, 
and  which  the  first  explosion  of  private  judg- 
ment had  shivered  into  countless  sects,  which 
was  nevertheless  so  pervaded  by  the  spirit  of 
dogmatism  that  each  of  these  sects  asserted  its 
distinctive  doctrines  with  the  same  confidence, 
and  persecuted  with  the  same  unhesitating 
virulence,  as  the  Church  which  was  venerable 
with  the  homage  of  more  than  twelve  cen- 
turies? .  .  .  Persecution  among  early 
Protestants  was  a  distinct  and  definite  doc- 
trine, digested  into  elaborate  treatises,  and  en- 
forced against  the  most  inoffensive  as  against 
the  most  formidable  sects.  It  was  the  doctrine 
of  the  palmiest  days  of  Protestantism.  It  was 
taught  by  those  who  are  justly  esteemed  its 
leaders.     (Vol.  11.  pp.  57-61.) 

With  this  verdict  against  Protestant  intoler- 
ance, deliberately  and  circumstantially  ren- 
dered by  a  Protestant  judge,  I  can  safely  close 
the  records  of  the  past.  If  Catholic  rulers 
were  mtolerant,  and  manifested  that  intoler- 
ance by  persecuting  for  religion's  sake,  they 


I  TO       Toleration  and  Intolerance 

acted  in  direct  opposition  to  the  mind  of  their 
Church ;  whereas  Protestants,  according  to 
their  own  showing,  "  made  persecution  a  dis- 
tinct and  definite  doctrine,  enforced  against 
the  most  inoffensive  as  against  the  most  for- 
midable sects." 

Confining  ourselves,  therefore,  to  a  con- 
sideration of  the  present,  can  it  be  said  that  the 
Catholic  Church  is  intolerant?  The  answer 
to  this  question  is  both  yes  and  no.  It  is  no, 
when  there  is  question  of  civil  intolerance. 
The  Church  does  not  advocate,  nor  even  de- 
sire, the  enactment  of  laws  which  w^ould  re- 
strict the  freedom  of  worship.  A  course  of 
action  as  is  at  present  pursued  by  the  infidel 
government  of  France,  and  such  as  was  at- 
tempted some  thirty  years  ago  by  Protestant 
Prussia,  would  never  be  tolerated  by  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  even  though  non-Catholic  sub- 
jects formed  but  an  insignificant  minority. 
She  takes  conditions  as  they  are ;  so  that  wher- 
ever non-Catholic  forms  of  worship  have  a 
de  facto  existence,  she  does  not  allow  Cath- 
olic governments  to  legislate  against  them,  so 
long  as  there  is  no  breach  of  public  order.  It 
is  true  enough,  a  conscious  possession  of  the 
truth    in    religious   matters   makes    it    encum- 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       hi 

bent  upon  her  to  take  proper  measures  that 
the  faith  of  her  children  be  not  endangered; 
but  this  duty  does  not  demand  that  estabhshed 
rights  of  other  beUevers  be  disregarded. 
Hence  the  apprehension  sometimes  expressed 
by  Protestants,  that  if  the  CathoHc  Church 
were  to  obtain  legislative  control  in  any  coun- 
tr\-,  Protestant  citizens  would  be  deprived  of 
their  rights,  is  wholly  without  foundation. 
Were  this  whole  country  to  become  Catholic, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  thousand  Protest- 
ants, the  Catholic  Church  would  not  only 
tolerate  this  vanishing  minority,  but  would  ef- 
fectively protect  them  against  all  unjust  ag- 
gressors. When  in  earlier  times  the  Jews 
were  persecuted  by  the  whole  world,  they 
found  security  and  shelter  in  the  shadow  of 
f  the  Vatican ;  and  so  also  are  Protestants  per- 
fectly secure  in  the  enjoyments  of  their  rights, 
wherever  the  Catholic  Church  has  legislative 
control. 

An  apparent  exception  to  this  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  in  countries  which  are  entirely 
Catholic,  the  Church  favors  prohibitive  legis- 
lation against  the  introduction  of  new  forms 
of  worship;  but  in  this  she  is  as  completely 
within  her  own  rights  as  is  the  American  gov- 


112       Toleration  and  Intolerance 

ernment  when  it  excludes  undesirable  immi- 
grants from  its  shores.  Any  state  has  the  in- 
herent right  to  exclude  foreigners  from  its 
territory,  whenever  such  exclusion  is  deemed 
necessary  for  the  country's  welfare ;  hence  if 
such  legislation  be  advocated  in  order  to  safe- 
guard the  religion  of  the  people,  it  cannot  be 
put  down  as  a  manifestation  of  religious  in- 
tolerance. This  legislation  has  nothing  in 
common  with  that  which  is  usually  called  class- 
legislation  ;  it  does  not  discriminate  between 
citizen  and  citizen,  but  only  refuses  to  admit 
to  the  rights  of  citizens  persons  considered 
undesirable. 

Another  apparent  exception,  made  much  of 
by  Protestants,  is  the  fact  that  the  Catholic 
Church  uses  very  severe  measures  against 
such  of  her  members  as  abandon  the  true  faith 
and  set  up  as  heretics.  She  cuts  them  off 
from  her  communion,  places  them  under  a 
ban,  prevents  them  as  far  as  she  is  able  from 
spreading  their  error,  and  after  their  death  re- 
fuses them  Christian  burial.  These  measures 
are  severe,  and  a  superficial  observer  might 
be  inclined  to  look  upon  them  as  manifesta- 
tions of  unjustifiable  intolerance;  yet  in  reality 
they  are  but  a  legitimate  exercise  of  her  di- 


I 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       113 

vinely  conferred  authority  as  teacher  and  law- 
giver. Does  not  our  own  government,  for 
instance,  forbid  its  citizens  to  proclaim  publicly 
doctrines  that  are  subversive  of  law  and  or- 
der? And  why  should  not  the  Church  act  in 
a  similar  manner  in  regard  to  her  own  sub- 
jects? Again,  as  our  government  claims  the 
right  to  inflict  punishment  when  its  legisla- 
tion in  this  matter  is  disregarded,  so  also  can 
the  Church  inflict  appropriate*  punishment 
when  her  laws  are  set  at  naught.  In  fact, 
wherever  lawful  authority  is  admitted,  there 
must  also  be  admitted  the  power  of  coercion ; 
the  one  without  the  other  is  futile,  and  prac- 
tically non-existent.  Hence  to  brand  such 
punishments  as  exhibitions  of  unjustifiable  in- 
tolerance is  simply  to  subvert  all  lawful  au- 
thority. Consequently,  taking  the  term  in  that 
odious  sense  which  the  enemies  of  the  Church 
have  attached  to  it,  civil  intolerance  has  no 
place  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

And  what  about  dogmatic  intolerance? 
Is  the  Catholic  Church  dogmatically  in- 
tolerant? She  certainly  is,  and  always  will 
be.  The  very  fact  that  she  is  certain  of  pos- 
sessing the  truth  in  matters  of  religion,  forces 
[  her  to  reject  all  other  religions  as  false.     In 


114       Toleration  and  Intolerance 

her  teaching  and  preaching  she  will  not  and 
canaot  admit  that  there  is  any  true  religion 
on  earth  except  the  one  which  she  received 
from  the  Divine  Founder  of  Christianity. 
Truth  is  one,  and  if  her  religion  is  true, 
then  others  that  are  opposed  to  hers  must 
be  false.  Now  truth  is  necessarily  intolerant 
of  falsehood,  and  therefore  the  Church  that 
professes  to  teach  the  true  religion,  must  in 
her  doctrinal  teaching  of  necessity  be  intol- 
erant of  every  other  Church. 

Our  Protestant  brethren  take  this  attitude 
of  the  Catholic  Church  very  much  amiss ;  yet 
if  they  would  but  consider  the  matter  dis- 
passionately, they  would  soon  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  in  the  very  nature  of  things  no 
other  attitude  is  possible.  Take  any  Chris- 
tian Church  you  please,  if  she  is  logically 
consistent,  she  must  be  dogmatically  intolerant. 
For  cither  she  is  certain  of  the  truth  of  her 
doctrines,  or  she  is  not:  if  she  is  not  certain, 
she  has  no  business  to  teach ;  because  she 
knowingly  runs  the  risk  of  leading  her  children 
into  error :  if  she  is  certain,  logical  consistency 
requires  that  she  brand  all  doctrines  opposed 
to  her  own  as  false,  and  that  is  dogmatic  in- 
tolerance. 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       115 

Non-Catholic  denominations  boast  nowa- 
days of  their  toleration  in  doctrinal  teaching: 
they  say  that  they  are  broadminded  enough 
to  admit  that  other  religious  bodies  may  be 
in  possession  of  the  truth ;  yet  what  does  this 
toleration  and  broadmindedness  mean?  It 
can  only  mean  one  thing,  namely,  that  there 
is  no  certainty  anywhere,  and  so  it  doesn't 
matter  much  what  is  taught  or  believed. 
Hence  no  other  argument  is  needed  to  show 
the  unsoundness  of  Protestant  teaching  than 
its  boasted  dogmatic  toleration,  its  false  broad- 
mindedness  in  matters  of  revealed  truth.  If  a 
person  is  certain  that  two  and  two  make  four, 
can  he  be  broadminded  enough  to  admit  that 
his  friend  may  be  right  when  he  holds  that 
two  and  two  make  five?  Such  broadminded- 
ness is  possible  only  when  he  is  not  certain 
of  his  own  position  regarding  the  matter  in 
question.  The  moment  he  admits  that  his 
friend  may  be  right,  he  admits  also  that  he 
himself  may  be  wrong,  and  therefore  he  sur- 
renders his  claim  to  a  certain  possession  of 
the  truth.  And  as  it  is  in  mathematics,  so  is  it 
in  religion ;  truth  is  one  wherever  it  is  found 
and  because  of  this  oneness  it  must  of  its  very 
nature  be  intolerant  of  falsehood. 


ii6      Toleration  and  Intolerance 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  this  dogmatic  in- 
tolerance, though  logical  enough  in  theory, 
leads  to  palpably  atsurd  consequences  when 
reduced  to  practice,  and  therefore  it  should 
not  be  accentuated.  To  this  I  answer  that 
the  absurd  consequences  to  which  dogmatic  in- 
tolerance leads  are  the  result  of  misunder- 
standing, or  false  inferences.  Thus,  for  ex- 
ample, as  the  Catholic  Church  holds  that  hers 
is  the  only  true  religion,  and  as  evidently  a 
false  religion  can  avail  nothing  for  salvation, 
it  would  seem  to  follow  that  she  must  consign 
all  other  believers  to  the  everlasting  torments 
,of  hell.  As  it  stands,  the  consequence  is 
surely  absurd  enough,  but  then  it  is  not  con- 
tained in  the  premises.  The  Catholic  Church 
holds  most  certainly  that  her  religion  is  the 
only  true  one,  and  also  that  the  true  religion 
alone  avails  for  salvation ;  but  that  is  by  no 
means  the  same  as  to  say  that  every  one  who 
has  not  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
religion  must  be  lost.  It  only  means  that 
non-Catholics  are  not  saved  by  the  religion 
which  they  profess,  for  that  religion  is  false, 
and  no  one  can  be  saved  by  a  false  religion ; 
but  they  may  be  saved  in  spite  of  their  re- 
ligion, if  they  are  in  good  faith  and  serve  God 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       117 

to  the  best  of  their  knowledge.  If  they  make 
diHgent  inquiry  concerning  the  true  rehgion, 
and  then  follow  the  light  which  God  gives 
them,  the  Catholic  Church  does  not  call  their 
salvation  in  question,  even  though  they  should 
never  be  sufficiently  enlightened  to  enter  the 
fold  by  a  formal  profession  of  her  faith,  be- 
cause she  holds  that  they  belong  to  it  in  spirit. 
But  if  Protestants  allow  themselves  to  be  led 
by  prejudice;  if  in  spite  of  their  better  judg- 
ment they  are  unwilling  to  examine  into  the 
claims  of  the  true  religion,  and  thus  wilfully 
shut  their  eyes  to  the  light  of  God's  grace, 
who  will  blame  the  Catholic  Church  for  hold- 
ing that  they  are  lost?  They  might  as  well 
blame  Christ  for  saying:  He  who  believeth 
not  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
shall  be  condemned.  The  two  positions  are 
identical,  and  whoso  approves  the  one,  may  not 
condemn  the  other.  It  is  only  in  this  sense 
that  the  Catholic  Church  understands  that 
much  abused  proposition,  "  Out  of  the  Church 
there  is  no  Salvation." 

Again,  Protestants  blame  the  CathoHc 
Church  for  not  allowing  her  members  to  visit 
non-Catholic  places  of  worship,  and  more 
especially  for  doing  all  in  her  power  to  pre- 


ii8      Toleration  and  Intolerance 

vent  them  from  listening  to  Protestant  ser- 
mons. But  what  absurdity  is  there  in  this 
prohibition,  if  Protestant  forms  of  worship 
are  unauthorized  and  if  their  sermons  lead 
away  from  the  truth?  If  the  Church  was  es- 
tablished to  lead  men  to  heaven,  it  is  plainly 
her  duty  to  warn  them  against  all  dangers 
that  beset  the  way.  Were  she  to  make  no 
provision  in  this  matter,  we  might  apply  to 
her  those  terrible  words  of  St.  Paul:  "  If  any 
man  have  not  care  of  his  own,  and  especially 
of  those  of  his  house,  he  hath  denied  the  faith, 
and  is  worse  than  an  infidel."  This  prohibition 
may  at  times  have  unpleasant  consequences, 
,but  as  these  consequences  flow  necessarily  from 
the  certain  possession  of  truth,  they  afford 
matter  for  joyous  sacrifice  rather  than  for  re- 
gretful submission. 

'But  you  will  say,  why  then  does  the  Catholic 
Church  invite  Protestants  to  be  present  at  her 
services?  Why  does  she  ask  them  to  listen 
to  her  sermons  and  lectures?  Is  she  not  in- 
consistent in  this?  Does  she  not  thereby  lead 
Protestants  into  evil?  For  if  it  is  wrong  for 
Catholics  to  expose  themselves  to  the  risk  of 
losing  their  faith,  is  it  not  equally  wrong  for 
Protestants?     No,  the  Catholic  Church  is  not 


Toleration  and  Intolerance       119 

inconsistent;  on  the  contrary,  consistency  re- 
quires that  she  should  make  every  effort  to 
lead  Protestants  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth. 
As  she  proves  by  incontrovertible  arguments 
that  she  is  a  divinely  appointed  teacher,  she 
holds  from  Christ  the  commission  to  ''  make 
disciples  of  all  nations."  Nor  do  Protestants 
violate  any  principle  of  their  Church  by  at- 
tending Catholic  services,  and  by  listening  to 
Catholic  sermons ;  for  no  Protestant  Church 
claims  infallible  teaching  authority,  and  there- 
fore no  Protestant  Church  has  power  to  inter- 
fere with  its  members  in  their  search  for  truth 
as  directed  by  their  own  private  judgment. 
Hence  individual  Protestants  have  not  only 
the  right  to  seek  after  truth  outside  their  own 
Church,  but  they  are  in  conscience  bound  to 
do  so,  for  their  Church  admits  that  she  may 
be  in  error.  Consequently,  when  the  Catholic 
Church  addresses  herself  to  all,  without  dis- 
tinction of  creed,  so  far  from  leading  Protest- 
ants astray,  he  rather  helps  them  to  fulfill  a 
duty  imposed  upon  them  by  their  own  con- 
science. 

Hence  I  may  well  conclude  these  remarks 
on  Toleration  and  Intolerance  by  stating,  that 
the  Catholic  Church  is  intolerant  onlv  in  so 


120        Toleration  and  Intolerance 

far  as  she  caries  out  the  solemn  injunction  of 
her  Divine  Founder :  "  Going  therefore, 
teach  ye  all  nations,  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 
If  any  there  be  who  object  to  this  intolerance, 
they  must  object  to  Christ  Himself,  and  that 
they  cannot  do  without  ceasing  to  be  Chris- 
tians. 


IV. 

THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  BIBLE. 

Any  Church  that  claims  to  teach  with  au- 
'thority,  and  to  point  the  way  to  heaven  with 
certainty,  must  needs  be  dogmatically  intoler- 
ant. For  such  a  Church  is  either  in  con- 
scious possession  of  the  truth,  or  she  is 
not;  if  she  is  not  conscious  of  pos- 
sessing the  truth,  she  has  no  right  to  teach, 
because  she  knowingly  runs  the  risk  of  lead- 
ing men  into  error ;  if  she  is  conscious  of  pos- 
sessing the  truth,  she  must  be  dogmatically 
intolerant,  because  truth  is  necessarily  in- 
tolerant of  falsehood.  Hence  the  charge  of 
dogmatic  intolerance,  so  persistently  urged 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  and  against  her 
alone,  is  a  convincing  proof  that  he  is  the  sole 
representative  of  the  one  true  religion  which 
Christ  established  on  earth. 

Now  this  dogmatic  intolerance  is  perhaps  no- 
where more  strikingly  manifested  than  in  the 

121 


122        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

interpretation  of  the  Bible.  In  regard  to  this 
the  CathoHc  Church  holds  that  she  alone 
constitutes  the  final  court  of  appeal,  by  whose 
decisions  all  her  children  must  aliidc.  This 
claim  she  bases  upon  the  fact  that  Christ  made 
her  the  custodian  of  revealed  truth,  and  com- 
missioned her  to  teach  whatsoever  He  had 
commanded.  And  rightly  so:  for  as  the 
greater  part  of  revealed  truth  is  contained  in 
the  Bible,  it  is  necessarily  par.  of  her  ofiice 
to  decide  what  is,  or  what  is  not,  the  meaning 
of  any  given  text.  Nor  can  such  a  decision 
be  subject  to  correction  by  anyone,  no  matter 
what  be  his  learning  and  erudition.  For  if 
it  were  possible  to  appeal  from  her  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  she  would  have  to  ad- 
mit that  she  might  err,  and  consequently  she 
would  have  no  authority  to  demand  belief 
under  pain  of  eternal  loss :  —  an  authority 
which  Christ  evidently  conferred  upon  His 
Church  when  He  said :  "  He  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  condemned." 

Against  this  uncompromising  attitude  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  in  regard  to  the  Interpreta- 
tion of  the  Bible,  religious  innovators  of  all 
ages  have  ever  directed  their  fiercest  attacks. 
And   necessarily   so.     For   whatever  new    re- 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        123 

ligion  a  man  may  originate,  if  it  is  to  be  at 
all  Christian  in  character,  he  must  needs  make 
appeal  to  the  Bible;  yet  as  long  as  any  es- 
tablished Church  claims  to  be  the  sole  in- 
terpreter of  Bible  truths,  such  appeal  is  im- 
possible. Hence  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
this  particular  claim  of  the  Catholic  Church 
is  violently  assailed  by  all  Protestant  denomi- 
nations, no  matter  how  much  at  variance  they 
may  be  among  themselves  as  regards  other 
points  of  doctrine.  They  one  and  all  charge 
the  Catholic  Church  with  an  assumption  of 
authority  that  is  wholly  unwarranted,  and  that 
deprives  the  faithful  of  the  spiritual  food 
stored  up  for  them  in  the  pages  of  the  Bible. 
Of  course,  the  charge  thus  made  has  been 
refuted  time  and  time  again  by  Catholic 
controversialists,  but  this  notwithstanding,  it 
is  urged  with  unabated  vigor  whenever  the 
occasion  presents  itself.  In  view  of  this  it 
would  seem  advisable  to  investigate  the  matter 
somewhat  in  detail,  as  we  shall  do  in  the 
present  discussion. 

To  make  our  discussion  intelligible,  we  must 
distinguish  two  points,  the  one  involving  a 
fact  of  history,  and  the  other  a  question  of 
doctrine.     The  historical  fact  of  which  there 


124        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

is  question,  is  suggested  by  the  timeworn 
charge  that  in  the  past  the  CathoHc  Church 
withheld  the  Bible  from  the  laity,  or  at  least 
from  such  as  were  unable  to  read  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  either  in  Latin  or  in  Greek.  I  say 
in  the  past,  because  that  the  Church  does  not 
withhold  the  Bible  from  the  people  at  pres- 
ent, is  so  evident  that  no  one  can  make  such  a 
statement  without  convicting  himself  of 
bad  faith.  For  not  only  is  the  Bible  to-day 
found  in  every  true  Catholic  home,  but  Cath- 
olics are  exhorted  by  their  pastors  to  read  it 
frccjuently  and  devoutly.  Nay,  the  late  Pope 
Leo  XIII,  even  granted  an  indulgence  to  ''all 
Catholics  who  would  spend  fifteen  minute  a 
day  in  the  devout  reading  of  the  Gospels  oi 
Jesus  Christ."  Hence  in  this  first  point  wc 
are  concerned  only  with  the  past,  namely 
whetlicr  in  past  ages  the  laity  were  forbidden 
to  read  the  Bible. 

Time  was  when  this  charge  was  urgec 
against  the  Catholic  Church  by  all  sorts  oJ 
Protestants,  but  that  time  is  fast  slipping  by 
It  still  forms  part  of  the  stock-in-trade  oJ 
professional  slanderers,  and  also  of  some  well- 
meaning  men  and  women  who  simply  go  b} 
hearsav ;  but  fair-minded  and  well  instructec 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        125 

Protestants,  whom  experience  has  taught  the 
necessity  of  seeking  their  information  con- 
'^  cerning  the  CathoHc  Church  from  rehable 
sources,  know  better  than  to  make  so  un- 
reasonable a  charge.  As  a  Protestant  writer 
in  the  Church  Quarterly  Review  puts  it : 
"  The  notion  that  the  people  in  the  Middle 
Ages  did  not  read  the  Bible  is  not  simply  a 
mistake;  it  is  one  of  the  most  ludicrous  and 
grotesque  blunders."  (i.  c.  Oct.  1879.)  And 
so  it  is.  It  is  true  enough  that  before  the 
art  of  printing  was  invented,  copies  of  the 
Bible  were  somewhat  rare ;  but  that  need  not 
be  a  matter  of  surprise  to  anyone  who  is  at 
all  familiar  with  the  conditions  of  the  times. 
Suppose  for  a  moment  that  all  our  printing 
establishments  were  destroyed,  and  could  not 
be  rebuilt ;  that  the  art  of  paper  manufacture 
were  suddenly  lost,  and  that  instead  of  print- 
ing thousands  of  pages  within  the  space 
of  a  few  hours,  men  had  to  form  every  letter 
by  hand,  so  that  it  would  take  months  and 
years  to  finish  a  single  copy  of  the  Bible; 
which,  moreover,  owing  to  the  expensiveness 
of  the  material  employed  and  the  enormous 
amount  of  labor  spent  on  its  production,  were 
to  cost  hundreds  of  dollars,  do  you  think  every 


126        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

Protestant  home  would  be  furnished  with  a 
Bible?  I  am  afraid  you  would  hardly  find 
a  sufficient  number  to  give  one  to  each  minis- 
ter or  preacher  of  the  Word,  and  this,  in  all 
likelihood,  would  be  secured  to  the  pulpit  by 
means  of  a  heavy  chain  so  that  it  might  not 
be  carried  off  by  thieves.  The  wonder  is  not 
that  there  were  so  few  Bibles  in  pre-Reforma- 
tion  times,  but  that  there  Vv^ere  so  many.  Men 
must  have  held  the  Bible  in  the  highest  es- 
teem when  they  were  willing  to  spend  a  small 
fortune  in  procuring  the  necessary  writing 
material,  and  then  laboriously  copy  the  sacred 
text,  letter  by  letter,  page  by  page,  and  chapter 
by  chapter,  from  Genesis  to  the  Apocalypse. 
In  fact,  had  it  not  been  for  the  spirit  of  faith 
that  made  of  this  drudgery  a  work  of  love,  the 
Scriptures  might  have  utterly  perished,  as  did 
thousands  of  other  works  of  the  distant  past. 
That  this  great  difficulty  of  securing  copies 
of  the  Bible  was  the  true  reason  why  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  were  not  more  extensively 
read,  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  during  the 
seventy  years  which  intervened  between  the 
invention  of  printing  and  the  Protestant  Re- 
formation, nearly  two  hundred  editions  of  the 
Bible^  either  whole  or  in  part,  were  published 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        127 

in  the  various  modern  languages.  For  no 
other  book  was  there  so  constant  and  so  uni- 
versal a  demand ;  nor  did  the  Church  in  the 
least  interfere  with  the  reading  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, so  long  as  no  abuses  crept  in.  Blessed 
Thomas  More,  who  died  a  martyr's  death  un- 
der Henry  the  Eighth,  tells  us  that  "  the 
whole  Bible  was  long  before  Wyclif's  days, 
by  virtuous  and  well-learned  men  translated 
into  the  English  tongue,  and  by  good  and 
goodly  people  with  devotion  and  soberness 
well  and  reverently  read."  (Dial.  iii.  14.) 
And  the  learned  John  Eck,  also  a  contemporary 
of  the  Reformation,  testifies  that  the  same 
practice  obtained  in  Germany,  adding  that  he 
himself  had  read  nearly  the  whole  Bible  be- 
fore he  was  ten  years  old.  ( Janssen  :  I.  p. 
54.)  Nay,  even  Luther  himself  said:  "In 
my  youth  I  accustomed  myself  to  read  the 
Bible,  and  I  read  it  often,  and  I  became  so 
familiar  with  the  text  that  I  knew  where  to 
find  each  single  statement."  (Table-talk:  ed. 
1568,  fol.  16.)  Yet  in  his  youth  Luther  was 
a  Catholic,  and  was  bound  by  the  same  laws 
as  any  other  Catholic  young  men.  If  we  add  to 
this  the  statement  of  Luther's  fellow  reformer, 
Melanchthon,  that  in  his  youth  the  Bible  was 


128        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

read  miich  more  extensively  by  the  young  than 
it  was  the  practice  after  the  Reformation 
(Lampert:  Bible,  p.  460),  it  must  be  evident 
to  all  that  the  Bible  was  anything  but  an  ''un- 
known book"  in  pre-Reformation  times. 

But,  you  will  say,  is  it  not  an  historical 
fact  that  the  Church  at  times  forbade  the  read- 
ing of  the  Bible  in  the  vernacular?  It  is 
and  it  is  not.  The  Church  never  issued  a 
general  prohibition  that  made  the  reading  of 
the  Bible  in  the  vernacular  unlawful ;  but  at 
various  times  she  laid  down  certain  condi- 
tions regarding  the  matter,  which  had  to  be 
observed  by  the  faithful,  so  that  they  might 
not  wrest  the  Scriptures  to  their  own  destruc- 
tion. It  was  not  until  the  Albigenses,  the 
Wyclifites,  and  later  on  the  Protestants,  issued 
editions  of  the  Bible  that  bristled  with  mis- 
translations, and  the  most  arbitrary  changes 
of  the  original  text,  that  the  Church  made 
stringent  regulations  in  regard  to  the  reading 
of  the  Scriptures.  These  regulations  did  not 
make  Bible-reading  unlawful,  but  required 
that  only  approved  editions,  well  supplied  with 
explanatory  notes  taken  from  the  writings  of 
the  Early  Fathers,  should  be  used.  For  a 
short  time  it  was  furthermore  required   that 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        129 

those  who  wished  to  read  the  Bible  in  the 
vernacular  should  obtain  ecclesiastical  per- 
mission, but  this  law  was  soon  tacitly  set  aside, 
so  that  practically  no  other  condition  was  to 
be  observed  than  to  secure  a  faithful  and  ap- 
proved translation  of  the  original  text,  which, 
for  the  guidance  of  the  unlearned,  was  co- 
piously annotated. 

In  this  matter,  as  in  so  many  others,  Protest- 
ants fail  to  distinguish  between  the  action  of 
the  Church  and  the  actions  of  Provincial  Sy- 
nods. It  is  indeed  true  that  the  Synod  of 
Toulouse,  in  1229,  the  Synod  of  Tarragona, 
1233,  and  the  Synod  of  Oxford,  in  1408,  is- 
sued formal  prohibitions  against  the  reading 
of  the  Bible  by  the  laity,  but  these  prohibitions 
had  only  a  local  application,  and  were  revoked 
as  soon  as  the  danger  that  threatened  the  faith 
in  those  localities  had  passed.  Hence  it  re- 
mains perfectly  true  that  the  Church  never 
withheld  the  Bible  from  the  people.  Her  leg- 
islation in  this  matter  was  never  prohibitive, 
but  only  tended  to  the  enactment  of  such  re- 
strictions as  the  common  good  evidently  re- 
quired. 

That  this  restrictive  legislation  was  most 
reasonable,  becomes  quite  manifest  when  we 


130        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

call  to  mind  that  the  religious  innovators 
purposely  mistranslated  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
so  as  to  enable  them  to  defend  their  un- 
orthodox views,  and  thus  to  lead  simple- 
minded  people  into  all  sorts  of  religious  er- 
rors. Bunsen,  himself  a  Protestant,  pointed 
out  as  many  as  three  thousand  faulty  trans- 
lations in  Luther's  version  of  the  Bible.  Nor 
were  they  merely  literary  variations,  but  many 
of  them  radically  changed  the  meaning  of  the 
original  text.  As  an  example  take  Luther's 
translation  of  the  twenty-eighth  verse  of  the 
third  chapter  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  The  correct  translation  of  this 
verse,  as  approved  by  all  scholars  of  eminence, 
is  the  following :  *'  For  we  account  a  man  to 
be  justified  by  faith,  without  the  works  of  the 
law."  The  last  clause  of  this  sentence,  namely, 
"  the  works  of  the  law,"  refers  to  the  law  of 
Moses  as  is  evident  from  the  context,  and  as 
Luther  himself  admits ;  so  that  the  meaning  of 
the  whole  verse  is :  "  We  account  a  man  to  be 
justified  by  the  Christian  faith,  without  per- 
forming the  works  prescribed  by  the  Mosaic 
law."  But  Luther  wished  to  use  these  words 
of  St.  Paul  to  prove  his  theory  that  man  is 
justified  by  faith  to  the  exclusion  of  all  good 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        131 

works ;  hence  in  his  translation  he  quietly 
slipped  in  the  adjective  "  alone,"  and  accord- 
ingly his  version  reads :  "  We  account  a  man 
to  be  justified  by  faith  alone,  without  the 
works  of  the  law ;"  so  that  not  only  works 
perscribed  by  the  Mosaic  law,  but  good  works 
of  all  kinds  were  excluded.  When  his  friends 
expressed  their  surprise  at  this  insertion,  he 
wrote  to  them :  "  You  seem  to  be  surprised 
that  I  said,  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone, 
though  the  word  '  alone  '  is  not  found  in  the 
Apostle's  text.  If  your  Papist  cavils  about 
this  word,  say  to  him  at  once,  that  Papist  and 
ass  are  the  same  thing.  The  whole  reason 
that  I  have  to  give  for  this  addition  is  that 
I  will  to  have  the  word  '  alone  '  there.  Thus 
will  I,  thus  do  I  command ;  let  my  will  stand 
by  way  of  reason."  (Audin,  p.  112.,  note.) 
Nor  did  he  stop  at  slipping  in  words  of  his 
own,  but  whenever  his  preconceived  theories 
required  it,  he  would  drop  whole  books,  de- 
claring on  his  sole  authority  that  they  were 
uncanonical,  though  in  the  past  they  had  .al- 
ways formed  part  of  the  inspired  writings. 
Thus  he  rejected  the  entire  Epistle  of  St. 
James,  calling  it  an  epistle  of  straw,  because 
in  it  St.  James  teaches  that  faith  without  works 


132        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

is  dead,  and  avails  nothing  for  salvation.  Is 
it  a  wonder  that  the  Church  should  have  taken 
effective  measures  in  order  to  preserve  her 
children  from  the  baleful  consequences  of  such 
arbitrary  proceedings?  Had  she  acted  other- 
wise she  would  have  been  grievously  de- 
linquent in  her  duty  as  divinely  appointed 
guardian  of  revealed  truths,  and  to  her  would 
have  been  applicable  the  words  of  St.  Paul : 
'*  If  a  man  have  not  care  of  his  own,  and 
especially  of  those  of  his  house,  he  hath  de- 
nied the  faith,  and  is  worse  than  an  infidel." 
Nor  yet  was  it  only  a  question  of  guarding 
against  textual  corruption,  but  the  Protestant 
theory  of  private  interpretation  was  beginning 
to  bear  the  most  deadly  fruit  and  needed  a 
powerful  corrective.  To  this  Luther  himself 
bears  witness  in  the  following  striking  pass- 
age, recorded  by  De  Wette :  "  This  one,"  he 
says,  "  will  not  hear  of  baptism,  that  one 
denies  the  sacrament,  another  puts  a  world 
between  this  and  the  last  day ;  some  say  this, 
some  say  that ;  there  are  about  as  many  sects 
and  creed  as  there  are  heads.  No  yokel  is 
so  rude  but  when  he  has  dreams  and  fancies 
he  thinks  himself  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  must  be  a  prophet."     (Vol.  III.  p.  61.) 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        133 

Now  suppose  that  the  Catholic  Church  had 
taken  no  measures  to  counteract  this  destruc- 
tive tendency,  what  would  have  been  the  in- 
evitable result  ?  Luther  tells  us  quite  plainly  : 
''  There  would  have  been  about  as  many  sects 
and  creeds  as  there  were  heads,"  and  the 
Church  of  Christ  would  have  been  van- 
quished by  the  powers  of  hell.  Hence  the 
fact  that  the  Church  enacted  restrictive  laws 
with  regard  to  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  should 
afford  matter  for  commendation  rather  than 
for  blame ;  because  these  laws  are  a  manifest 
proof  both  of  her  great  reverence  for  the 
sacred  writings,  and  of  the  solicitude  with 
which  he  watches  over  the  faith  of  her  chil- 
dren. 

The  second  point  to  be  considered  in  con- 
nection with  this  matter  is  doctrinal  in  charac- 
ter, and  regards  the  authority  which  the 
CathoHc  Church  claims  in  respect  to  Scriptural 
interpretation.  She  allows  all  her  children  to 
read  the  Bible ;  she  is  well  pleased  when  they 
devote  their  time  and  talents  to  the  elucidation 
of  the  sacred  text,  or  write  learned  treatises 
concerning  the  doctrines  contained  therein; 
but  in  all  this  she  claims  the  right  of  super- 
vision, so  that  whenever  there  is  question  of 


134        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

interpretation,  she  herself  is  the  final  court  of 
appeal.  To  this  attitude  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  Protestants  one  and  all  take  excep- 
tion, contending  that  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  Sacred  Scriptures  every  one  is  his  own 
Daniel.  Men  and  women,  learned  and  un- 
learned, young  and  old,  are  all  supposed  to  be 
competent  to  learn  the  faith  from  a  devout 
reading  of  the  Bible,  and  if  they  should  dif- 
fer as  to  the  meaning  of  any  particular  text, 
each  and  every  one  has  an  incontestable  right 
to  his  or  her  own  opinion.  Hence  the  ques- 
tion presents  itself,  which  of  these  two  views 
is  right,  and  which  is  wrong;  for  both  can 
certainly  not  be  right,  since  the  one  is  the  con- 
tradictory of  the  other. 

That  this  question  cannot  be  decided  on  a 
priori  grounds  is  manifest ;  because  the  Found- 
er of  Christianity  might  have  chosen  either 
one  of  the  two  methods  in  transmitting  the 
truths  which  He  wished  to  be  believed.  As 
it  was  possible  for  Him  to  establish  in  His 
Church  an  infallible  teaching  authority  to 
which  all  His  followers  should  be  obliged  to 
submit,  so  also  was  it  in  His  power  to 
confer  the  gift  of  infallibility  upon  each  single 
individual.     However     whilst     He     was     not 


The  Church  and  the  Bible         135 

obliged  to  choose  one  method  rather  than  the 
other,  one  of  the  two  He  certainly  chose;  be- 
cause He  bound  all  under  pain  of  eternal  loss 
to  believe  all  things  whatsoever  He  com- 
manded, and  this  He  could  not  have  done  un- 
less He  had  provided  some  means  whereby 
men  could  know  with  absolute  certainty  what 
truths  He  commanded  to  be  believed.  Hence 
the  question  resolves  itself  into  this :  Did 
Christ  make  private  judgment  the  final  criter- 
ion of  Scripture  interpretation,  or  did  He  es- 
tablish an  infallible  teaching  authority  by 
whose  decision  all  His  followers  must  abide? 
If  we  turn  to  the  Scriptures  for  an  an- 
swer to  this  question,  we  certainly  find  no 
argument  whatever  that  can  be  advanced  in 
favor  of  private  judgment.  When  speaking 
to  the  unbelieving  Doctors  of  the  Law,  who 
would  believe  neither  His  words  not  His 
works,  Christ  told  them  indeed :  ''  Search  the 
Scriptures,  for  you  think  in  them  you  have 
life  everlasting;  and  the  same  are  they  that 
give  testimony  of  me."  (John  v,  39),  but 
in  saying  this  He  laid  down  no  general  prin- 
ciple which  He  intended  for  the  guidance  of 
His  followers.  As  is  evident  from  the  con- 
text, He  only  used  against  His  adversaries  an 


136        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

argument  the  force  of  which  they  themselves 
recognized ;  an  argument  which  is  identical 
with  that  which  the  Catholic  Church  uses 
against  Protestants  in  this  very  matter,  when 
she  says :  "  Search  the  Scriptures,  for  you 
admit  that  they  bear  testimony  to  the  truth, 
yet  they  testify  that  I  am  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed teacher  of  Christ's  revelations."  That 
Christ  intended  private  judgment  as  a  final 
criterion  of  revealed  truth.  He  not  so  much  as 
indicated  in  all  His  teaching. 

On  the  other  hand,  nothing  could  be  plainer 
than  Christ's  oft  repeated  and  clearly  expressed 
intention  to  establish  in  His  Church  an  in- 
fallible teaching  authority,  to  which  all  His 
followers  should  yield  an  unqualified  obedi- 
ence in  matters  of  faith.  When  He  promised 
to  found  a  Church  against  which  the  gates  of 
hell  should  not  prevail,  He  made  Peter  the 
rock  upon  which  that  Church  should  rest  se- 
curely. (Matt,  xvi,  18).  To  Peter  He 
entrusted  the  office  of  feeding  His  lambs  and 
His  sheep;  (John  xxi,  15-18);  Peter  He 
confirmed  in  the  faith  so  as  to  enable  him  to 
confirm  his  brethren  also.  (Luke  xxii,  32). 
Again,  when  He  commissioned  His  Apostles 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  He  enjoined  all  to  re- 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        137 

ccive  their  teaching  as  His  own  infaUible  word ; 
for  He  said :  "  He  that  beHeveth  not  shall  be 
condemned;  "  (Mark  xvi,  16),  so  that  the  re- 
fusal on  the  part  of  men  to  be  guided  by  the 
teaching  authority  which  He  established,  was 
to  be  the  cause  of  their  eternal  damnation. 
Xow,  as  Christ  intended  His  Church  for  all 
times,  so  did  He  also  intend  the  perpetuity  of 
this  teaching  authority,  as  He  clearly  indicated 
when  He  said :  ''  Behold  I  am  with  you  all 
days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world." 
(Matt,  xxviii,  20).  In  conformity  with  this. 
He  laid  down  the  general  rule :  "  If  a  man 
will  not  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  to  thee 
as  the  heathen  and  publican."  (Matt,  xviii, 
17).  Hence  if  there  is  anything  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  the  Bible,  it  is  the  fact  that  Christ 
established  in  His  Church  a  teaching  authority 
which  was  to  be  the  final  court  of  appeal  in 
matters  of  faith,  and  therefore  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures. 

This  same  point  is  still  further  proved  by 
the  historical  fact  that  the  Gospel  was  an- 
nounced to  the  w^orld,  not  by  means  of  written 
documents,  but  by  the  living  voice  of  Christ's 
ambassadors.  Christ  Himself  certainly  never 
wrote  a   line,   nor  did  He  enjoin  upon   His 


138        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

Apostles  to  write  books,  but  to  preach  with 
authority  whatsoever  He  had  commanded.  If 
some  of  the  Apostles  and  disciples,  years  after 
Christ's  ascension,  and  therefore  after  the 
Church  had  already  been  established,  made  a 
synopsis  of  the  Gospel  message,  it  was  rather 
by  way  of  notes,  that  might  indeed  serve  to 
help  the  memory,  but  were  never  intended  to 
take  the  place  of  the  living  and  infallible 
teaching  authority  ordained  by  Christ.  Bible 
Christians,  who  built  their  faith  upon  the  Sac- 
red Scriptures  as  interpreted  by  themselves, 
were  unknown  in  the  early  Church ;  they  are 
an  offspring  of  the  Protestant  Reformation. 
A  modern  writer  puts  this  very  strikingly 
when  he  says:  "  It  is  as  futile  to  speak  of 
Bible  Christians  in  the  days  of  primitive 
Christianity,  when  men  died  for  Christ  by  the 
thousands,  as  to  speak  of  the  Emperor  Nero 
or  Decius  travelling  about  in  a  Pullman  palace 
car,  their  families  going  down  the  Appian 
Way  in  an  automobile,  their  generals  using 
smokeless  powder,  Maxim  guns,  or  Mauser 
bullets,  or  their  ministers  reading  telegraphic 
dispatches  from  all  parts  of  the  empire." 

Now    if    Christ    established    an    infallible 
teaching  authority,  it  is  quite  certain  that  there 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        139 

is  no  room  for  private  judgment  as  a  final 
criterion  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  For 
as  it  is  admitted  by  all  believing  Christians 
that  the  Bible  is  a  storehouse  of  revealed 
truth,  its  interpretation  must  in  the  very  nature 
of  things  belong  to  the  divinely  appointed 
guardian  of  these  truths;  because  else  we 
should  have  a  final  court  of  appeal  without 
jurisdiction,  which  is  an  absurdity.  The 
same  is,  moreover,  quite  evident  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  Sacred  Writings.  For  although 
there  are  some  truths  in  the  Bible  that  are 
easily  understood,  yet  there  are  many  others 
of  which  human  reason  understands  but  little, 
unless  they  be  made  intelligible  by  the  living 
voice  of  an  infallible  teacher.  This  Luther 
himself  admitted  when  he  said :  "  To  know 
exhaustively  one  word  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  to  understand  it  thoroughly,  is  impossible, 
all  learned  men  and  theologians  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding;  because  they  are  the 
words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  therefore  too 

sublime  for  man  to  comprehend I 

have  at  times  tried  to  meditate  on  the  ten  com- 
mandments, and  when  I  began  with  the  first, 
which  is  thus  worded :  '  I  am  the  Lord  thy 
God,'   I   could  not  advance  beyond  the  first 


140        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

little  word  '  I  ' ;  and  that  '  I '  I  have  not  yet 
learned  to  understand."  (Table-talk:  ed. 
1568,  fol.  3).  What  St.  Peter  said  of  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  namely,  that  there  are 
in  them  "  certain  things  hard  to  be  under- 
stood, which  the  unstable  wrest  to  their  own 
destruction,"  is  applicable  to  many  other  parts 
of  the  Bible.  Unless  its  interpretation  be  sub- 
ject to  the  judgment  of  a  living  and  divinely 
established  authority,  it  becomes  the  source  of 
all  sorts  of  errors. 

That  this  is  not  mere  theory,  but  a  matter 
of  practical  experience,  must  be  evident  to 
anyone  who  has  had  occasion  to  study  the 
Babel  of  conflicting  opinions  that  have  re- 
sulted from  the  application  of  private  judg- 
ment to  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  How 
many  Protestants,  do  you  think,  agree  even 
on  its  fundamental  teachings?  We  have  al- 
ready heard  what  Luther  said  concerning  this 
matter  in  his  own  day :  ''  There  are  about  as 
many  sects  and  creeds  as  there  are  heads." 
And  that  matters  have  not  improved  since 
Luther's  time,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
scarcely  a  year  passes  which  does  not  witness 
the  birth  of  a  new  sect,  ushered  into  existence 
by    a    recently    excogitated    interpretation    of 


The  Church  and  the  Bible        141 

some  Bible  text.  A  Protestant  writer  put  this 
very  strikingly  in  an  article  recently  published 
in  the  North  German  Correspondence.  After 
stating  that  the  Catholic  Church  possesses  a 
sure,  unchanging  source  of  interpretation, 
which  is  lacking  in  Protestant  Churches,  he 
continues :  "  Not  only  do  our  theologians 
dispute,  rightly  or  wrongly,  this  way  and  that 
way,  over  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
certain  books  of  the  Bible,  but  with  one  stroke 
of  the  pen  they  blot  out  sometimes  a  chapter, 
sometimes  a  verse,  even  in  passages  whose 
authenticity  they  recognize. 

"  When  one  teacher  has  shown,  *  as  clearly 
as  daylight,'  that  a  passage  should  be  taken  in 
one  sense,  another  appears  and  shows,  also, 
'  as  clearly  as  daylight,'  that  the  interpreter 
is  in  error,  and  that  the  passage  must  be 
understood  in  a  new  sense.  When  theologians 
are  themselves  ignorant  of  the  art  of  pene- 
trating the  sense  of  the  Bible,  how  much  are 
we  poor  laymen  to  be  pitied.  We  are  sent  to 
the  Bible,  and  nowhere  in  it  do  we  find  a 
means  of  understanding  it,  or  of  reaching  a 
unity  of  faith  from  it.  What  kind  of  Church 
must  this  one  be  which  is  always  appealing  to 


142        The  Church  and  the  Bible 

a  book  without  being  able  to  furnish  any  solid 
interpretation  of  its  contents  ?  " 

In  view  of  all  this,  it  seems  to  me,  I  may 
well  conclude  this  discussion  with  the  famous 
words  of  St.  Augustine :  "  I  would  not  be- 
lieve the  Gospel  unless  moved  thereto  by  the 
authority  of  the  Church."  (Contra  Epis. 
Fund.) 


V. 

Mary's  place  in  the  church  of  christ. 

The  fact  that  Christ  established  in  His 
Church  an  infalHble  teaching  authority,  to 
which  all  His  followers  must  yield  an  un- 
hesitating obedience,  makes  it  evident  that 
there  is  no  room  for  private  judgment  as  a 
final  criterion  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Bible.  For  the  truths  contained  in  the  Bible 
belong  to  the  sacred  deposit  of  faith,  and  must 
therefore  necessarily  be  safeguarded  by  the  au- 
thority which  Christ  appointed  to  teach  what- 
soever He  had  commanded.  Individual  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  may  read  the  Bible;  they 
may  meditate  on  the  truths  ^contained  there- 
in ;  they  may  even  suggest  interpretations  of 
obscure  passages ;  but  in  all  this  they  must  be 
subject  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church  as  the 
final  authority  from  whose  decisions  there  is 
no  appeal.  Hence  when  Protestants  protest 
against  the  authority  which  the  Catholic 
143 


144      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

Church  has  always  claimed  in  regard  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  Bible,  they  protest  against 
Christ  Himself,  for  He  said  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly :  Teach  ye  all  nations,  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you.  He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized, shall  be  saved :  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  condemned. 

Now  as  the  Church  was  made  the  final 
court  of  appeal  in  matters  of  faith,  so  was  she 
also  made  the  final  court  of  appeal  in  regard 
to  devotional  practices ;  for  devotional  prac- 
tices are  but  an  outward  manifestation  of  in- 
ward belief;  they  are,  as  it  were,  the  blossoms 
and  the  fruit  that  grow  upon  the  tree  of  faith. 
If  the  Church  has  authority  to  demand  be- 
lief in  the  mysteries  of  religion,  she  must  for 
the  same  reason  have  authority  to  determine 
in  what  manner  these  mysteries  shall  be  hon- 
ored by  the  faithful.  Thus,  for  instance,  when 
the  Church  teaches  that  Christ  is  really  and 
personally  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  she 
is  in  the  very  nature  of  things  expected  to 
decide  what  devotional  practices  shall,  or 
shall  not,  cluster  around  the  altar  as  their 
source  and  center.  Hence  authority  in  mat- 
ters of  faith  must  imply  authority  in  matters 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church       145 

of  devotion ;  the  one  is  inseparably  bound  up 
with  the  other. 

It  is  because  of  this  divinely  established 
authority,  regulating  the  outward  expression 
of  faith,  that  the  Catholic  Church  is,  and  has 
ever  been,  so  fruitful  a  source  of  devotional 
practices.  In  fact,  few  things  are  more  strik- 
ing in  the  Catholic  Church  than  the  variety 
of  approved  devotions  that  cluster  around  her 
sacred  altars.  Devotions  to  God,  devotions  to 
the  God-Man,  devotions  to  the  friends  of  God 
—  His  saints,  who  reign  with  Him  in  glory. 
From  the  birth  of  the  Christ-child  in  want  and 
suffering,  to  the  triumphant  entry  of  the  risen 
Saviour  into  heaven ;  and  from  the  coming  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Sanctifier,  to  the  feast  of 
all  His  sainted  children,  the  Church  crowds 
her  days  with  the  grateful  memories  of  God's 
mercy  and  power.  Aside  from  the  special 
and  festive  commemoration  of  divine  myster- 
ies, she  presents  to  us,  on  nearly  every  day 
of  the  year,  some  one  of  her  many  saints  for 
our  veneration  and  imitation.  Now  she  points 
to  a  St.  Aloysius  all  beautiful  in  the  white- 
ness of  his  virginal  purity;  now  to  a  St.  An- 
gustine  seamed,  indeed,  with  the  wounds  of 
his  early  sins,  yet  made  bright  and  glorious 


146      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

by  the  sweet  austerity  of  chastening  penance. 
Now  it  is  the  lovely  innocence  of  a  St.  Agnes 
that  enchains  our  attention :  now  the  sweet 
patience  of  a  St.  Lawrence,  or  the  trustful 
perseverance  of  a  St.  Monica.  Every  high 
ideal  has  there  its  concrete  realization,  and 
every  human  needs  finds  sympathy  and  aid. 

Yet  devotions  to  all  these  saints  occupy  but 
a  secondary  rank  when  compared  to  the  de- 
votion practiced  in  honor  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
the  Mother  of  God.  The  triumphs  of  other 
saints  we  celebrate  by  dedicating  one  day  to 
their  memory ;  we  honor  them  by  having  re- 
course to  their  aid  in  some  special  need :  but 
such  veneration  falls  far  short  of  that  which 
is  considered  due  to  her  who  is  "  our  tainted 
nature's  solitary  boast."  Every  incident  in 
her  life  is  to  the  Church  of  the  greatest  inter- 
est, and  as  such  it  calls  for  a  special  com- 
memoration. Her  Immaculate  Conception, 
her  Nativity,  her  Presentation  in  the  Temple, 
her  glorious  Assumption  into  Heaven, 
are  so  many  sources  of  sweetest  joy  to  all 
her  faithful  children.  Nor  yet  did  the 
Church  think  it  sufficient  to  set  apart  single 
days  for  her  special  veneration,  but  she 
consecrated   to   her   memorv   the   year's   most 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church       147 

beautiful  month  —  the  month  of  May  — 
during  which  the  whole  Catholic  world  cele- 
brates her  praises  and  extols  her  queenly 
virtues. 

From  this  it  is  evident  that  Mary  occupies 
a  very  prominent  place  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  it  is  the  reasonableness  of  this 
prominence  that  we  shall  consider  somewhat 
in   detail   in   the   present   discussion. 

To  the  Catholic  this  devotion  to  Mary 
seems  most  appropriate ;  nay,  without  it,  the 
religious  world  would  appear  deprived  of 
one  of  its  sweetest  charms :  but  the  matter 
is  viewed  in  a  very  different  light  by  our 
separated  brethren.  To  them  devotion  to 
Mary  is  often  the  greatest  stumbling-block 
in  their  way  to  the  true  faith.  The  time- 
worn  calumny  that  Catholics  adore  the  Vir- 
gin, is  indeed  fast  losing  its  market  value ; 
but  other  objections,  apparently  not  less 
formidable,  are  put  in  its  place.  These  ob- 
jections are  many  and  various;  yet  they  may 
all  be  reduced  to  the  following  two,  which 
form  the  pith  and  marrow  of  Protestant  dif- 
ficulties concerning  this  matter.  First  of  all, 
Protestants  contend  that  Mary  was  but  an 
ordinary  woman,  and  that  therefore  Catholics 


148      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

are  unreasonable  in  assigning  to  her  so  promi- 
nent a  place  in  their  devotional  practices : 
secondly,  they  maintain  that  devotion  to  Mary 
of  its  very  nature  detracts  from  the  devotion 
that  is  due  to  Christ,  and  consequently  it 
should  not  be  tolerated  in  the  Church  whereof 
Christ  is  the  founder.  This  is,  I  believe,  a 
fair  statement  of  the  objections  commonly 
urged  against  Catholics  by  modern  Protes- 
tants ;  hence  if  we  can  dispose  of  these  diffi- 
culties, we  shall  ipso  facto  vindicate  Mary's 
right  and  title  to  the  place  which  she  has  ever 
occupied  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

In  answer  to  the  first  difficulty,  namely,  that 
Mary  was  but  an  ordinary  woman,  I  say  that 
it  implies  a  fundamental  error.  Such  a  state- 
ment cannot  possibly  be  made  except  by  men 
who  have  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  Mary  is 
the  mother  of  God,  and  not  merely  the  mother 
of  Christ's  human  nature.  With  regard  to 
this  point  modern  Protestants,  or  at  least  the 
vast  majority  of  them,  go  much  beyond  the 
originators  of  their  respective  systems. 
Luther  and  Calvin,  for  instance,  never  once 
questioned  Mary's  title  to  the  dignity  of  di- 
vine motherhood ;  nay,  Luther  went  even  so 
far  as  to  claim  for  her,  in  Consequence  of  her 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church       149 

divine  motherhood,  freedom  from  all  sin. 
(Postill:  Walch,  1745.)  But  as  there  is  an 
ever  growing  tendency  in  Protestant  Churches 
to  emphasize  the  human  element  in  Christ,  so 
is  there  a  corresponding  tendency  to  deprive 
Mary  of  her  greatest  dignity.  Hence  it  need 
not  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to  anyone  that 
Protestants  are  unable  to  enter  into  the  spirit 
of  Catholic  devotion  to  the  Virgin  Mother. 
For  Mary's  first  title  to  our  reverence  and  love 
is  the  fact  that  she  is  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word  the  Mother  of  God.  Deprive  her  of 
this  prerogative,  and  you  make  her  an  ordi- 
nary woman  : —  the  most  perfect  and  the  most 
saintly,  if  you  will,  but  for  all  that  only  an 
ordinary  woman,  little  deserving  the  homage 
that  is  paid  her  in  the  Catholic  Church.  On 
the  contrary,  concede  to  her  the  dignity  of  di- 
vine motherhood,  and  she  must  needs  become 
the  object  of  a  devotion  that  falls  short  only 
of  being  divine.  For  then  her  honor  becomes 
the  honor  of  her  son,  and  indifference  to  her 
means  indifference  to  Christ.  If  she  is  the 
Mother  of  God,  then  God  Himself  must  de- 
mand that  we  honor  her  as  such ;  for  can  He 
Who  engraved  the  law  of  filial  love  and  rev- 


150      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

erence  upon  the  hearts  of  all  be  indifferent  to 
the  honor  of  His  own  mother? 

To  grasp  the  force  of  this  reasoning  we 
must  bear  in  mind  that  Mary,  in  virtue  of  her 
divine  motherhood,  is  just  as  truly  the  mother 
of  God  as  any  human  mother  is  the  mother 
of  her  own  child.  For  though  there  are  two 
natures  in  Christ,  the  one  divine,  the  other 
human ;  nevertheless  there  is  only  one  person, 
and  that  person  is  divine  —  the  person  of  God 
the  Son.  This  person  was  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  in  virtue  of  the  hypostatic  or  substantial 
union  which  was  effected  between  it  and  the 
human  nature  at  moment  of  conception. 
Hence  when  we  say  that  Mary  is  the  mother 
of  God,  we  do  not  mean  that  she  is  merely 
the  mother  of  Christ's  human  nature ;  for 
then  she  would  be  the  mother  of  a  man,  not 
of  God:  neither,  of  course,  do  we  mean  that 
Christ  owed  His  divine  personality  to  Mary, 
in  the  sense  that  it  received  existence  only  at 
the  moment  of  conception ;  for  a  divine  person 
as  such  cannot  owe  his  existence  to  a  creature, 
nor  can  such  a  person  begin  to  exist  in  time, 
but  must  necessarily  be  from  all  eternity;  but 
what  we  do  mean  is,  that  the  moment  of 
Christ's  conception  in  the  womb  of  the  Vir- 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church       151 

gin  Mary  was  the  beginning  of  that  substan- 
tial union  the  result  of  which  is  the  God-Man, 
at  once  divine  in  person  yet  possessing  as  His 
own  a  human  nature.  This  union  makes 
Mary  really  and  truly  the  mother  of  God. 
For  as  in  merely  human  procreation  parents 
are  not  the  authors  of  their  children's  souls, 
because  these  being  spiritual  are  directly 
created  by  God,  yet  in  virtue  of  the  intimate 
union  which  exists  between  soul  and  body, 
they  are  really  and  truly  parents,  not  merely  of 
their  children's  bodies,  but  of  their  persons ;  so 
too  is  Mary,  in  virtue  of  the  substantial  union 
between  Christ's  human  nature  and  His  divine 
person,  the  mother,  not  only  of  His  human 
nature,  but  of  His  divine  person: — the 
mother  of  the  God-Man,  the  mother  of  God. 
Now  that  the  dignity  of  divine  motherhood, 
thus  explained  and  understood,  must  neces- 
sarily procure  for  Mary  the  veneration  of  all 
those  who  acknowledge  her  son  as  their  Lord 
and  Master,  is  evident  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  case.  For  the  child  is  in  a  manner  the 
substantial  image  of  its  mother,  and  the 
mother  has,  as  it  were,  a  second  existence  in 
the  child  of  her  womb ;  so  that  the  honor  of 
the  mother  is  the  honor  of  her  child,  and  the 


152      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

disgrace  of  the  mother  is  her  child's  disgrace. 
Hence  even  among  men,  no  true  son  will  ever 
acknowledge  as  his  friends  persons  who  slight 
his  mother;  for  what  is  done  to  her,  he  con- 
siders as  done  to  himself.  And  this  is  all  the 
more  true  in  proportion  as  the  family  likeness 
that  exists  between  mother  and  child,  not  only 
in  the  physical  but  also  in  the  moral  order,  is 
the  more  perfect:  yet  where  was  this  likeness 
ever  carried  to  greater  perfection  than  be- 
tween Mary  and  Jesus  ?  For  did  not  the  Angel 
call  her  full  of  grace,  that  is,  corresponding  in 
every  particular  to  the  sublime  idea  which 
Goci  Himself  had  conceived  of  her  as  the 
mother  of  His  Only  Begotten  Son?  Hence 
not  only  is  Mary  the  mother  of  God,  but,  as 
far  as  that  is  possible,  also  a  worthy  mother; 
a  mother  whom  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  was 
and  is  proud  to  acknowledge  before  angels 
and  men  as  His  very  own. 

The  statement,  therefore,  that  Mary  was 
but  an  ordinary  woman,  is  as  false  in  fact  as 
it  is  mischievous  in  principle.  Mary  an  ordi- 
nary woman !  Why,  the  mere  thought  of  it 
is  preposterous.  God  Himself  pointed  to  her 
as  the  woman  par  excellence,  who  would  crush 
the  serpent's  head ;  prophets  foretold  her  com- 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church       153 

ing  as  the  mother  of  the  world's  Redeemer; 
the  court  of  heaven  sent  her  an  embassy  to 
soHcit  her  co-operation  in  the  mystery  of  the 
Incarnation;  the  Angel  saluted  her  with  the 
words :  "  Hail,  full  of  grace,  the  Lord  is 
with  thee ;  blessed  art  thou  among  women ;" " 
Elizabeth,  inspired  by  the  Holy  host,  greeted 
her :  "  Blessed  art  thou  among  women,  and 
blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb.  And 
whence  is  this  to  me,  that  the  mother  of  my 
Lord  should  come  to  me  ?  "  Mary  an  ordi- 
nary woman !  That  can  be  said  only  by  one 
who  has  lost  sight  of  the  meaning  of  the  In- 
carnation: —  by  one  who  does  not  belong  to 
the  generations  of  God's  people ;  for  all  gen- 
erations shall  call  her  blessed. 

Hence  this  attitude  of  indifference  towards 
Mary's  dignity,  so  thoughtlessly  maintained 
by  the  majority  of  Protestants,  is  so  palpably 
erroneous  that  many  of  the  more  thoughtful, 
who  still  believe  in  Christ's  divinity,  have 
abandoned  it.  They  begin  to  realize,  as 
Catholics  have  realized  from  the  very  first, 
that  if  Mary  is  the  mother  of  God,  she  must 
of  necessity  command  our  admiration  and  love 
and  reverence.  Then,  so  far  from  being  an 
ordinary  woman,  she  is  in  very  truth  "  our 


154      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

tainted  nature's  solitary  boast."  Then  all  gen- 
erations must  call  her  blessed,  because  He  that 
is  mighty  hath  done  great  things  to  her. 

The  first  objection,  therefore,  which  Pro- 
testants urge  against  Catholic  devotion  to 
Mary,  is  without  foundation  in  fact ;  and  so 
also  is  the  second  one,  as  we  shall  see  pres- 
ently. Devotion  to  Mary,  say  our  Protestant 
brethren,  even  though  it  be  reasonable  in  it- 
self, detracts  from  the  worship  due  to  Christ, 
and  therefore  it  should  not  be  encouraged. 
Protestants  never  tire  of  repeating  the  words 
of  St.  Paul,  addressed  to  his  disciple  Timothy : 
"  There  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  of  God 
and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  (I  Tim. 
ii,  5.)  Which  words,  they  think,  exclude 
every  other  mediatorship,  and  consequently 
indirectly  at  least  condemn  the  veneration  of 
the  saints,  and  therefore  also  of  the  Virgin 
Alary.  But  they  forget  that  the  .Apostle 
speaks  of  a  mediator  who  is  such  in  virtue  of 
his  own  merits,  and  not  of  one  whose  excel- 
lence must  ultimately  be  referred  to  some  one 
else.  For  he  immediately  adds :  "  Who  gave 
himself  a  redemption  for  all."  In  this  re- 
stricted sense,  it  is  true  enough,  there  is  only 
one  mediator ;  but  this  truth  is  as  strongly  em- 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church       155 

phasized  by  Catholics  as  by  Protestants. 
The  Council  of  Trent  explicitly  states  that 
there  is  only  one  mediator,  Jesus  Christ,  but 
it  contends  that  the  invocation  of  the  saints  in 
no  wise  interferes  with  this  mediatorship. 
(Sessio  XXV.  j  Christ  is  the  one  mediator 
of  justice,  whereas  the  saints,  and  even  the 
Blessed  Mother  of  God,  are  but  mediators  of 
grace  and  prayer,  and  this  only  because  of 
the  bond  of  friendship  that  unites  them  so 
intimately  with  God  through  Christ.  The  one 
does  not  exclude  the  other,  and  hence  we  find 
that  St.  Paul,  to  whom  Protestants  appeal  in 
this  contention,  himself  points  to  the  saints, 
and  even  to  the  faithful  upon  earth,  as  media- 
tors between  God  and  man.  (Ephes.  vi,  18; 
Rom.  XV,  30.) 

Consequently,  the  objection  that  devotion  to 
Mary  detracts  from  the  worship  due  to  Christ 
has  no  force  whatever.  It  is  based  upon  the 
supposition  that  the  honor  paid  to  Mary  is 
the  same  in  kind  as  that  paid  to  her  Divine 
Son;  yet  this  supposition  is  absolutely  false. 
The  honor  and  homage  we  pay  to  Christ  is 
absolute  and  divine ;  it  is  divine  worship  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term :  whereas  the  honor 
and  homage  we  pay  to  Mary  is  always  relative 


156      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

and  human ;  it  is  not  worship  strictly  so  called, 
but  only  veneration.  Christ  we  adore  as  God ; 
Mary  we  venerate  as  specially  near  and  dear 
to  God.  Christ  we  worship  on  account  of 
His  own  increate  perfection;  Mary  we  rever- 
ence because  He  that  is  mighty  has  done 
great  things  to  her.  It  is  first  and  last  for 
the  Son's  sake  that  we  honor  the  mother. 
Because  she  is  dear  to  Him,  therefore  she  is 
also  dear  to  us ;  because  we  honor  Him,  there- 
fore we  also  honor  her.  Hence  devotion  to 
Mary  cannot  detract  from  devotion  to  Christ ; 
because  they  are  different  in  kind,  and  the  one 
is  inseparably  bound  up  with  the  other. 

That  this  is  not  merely  a  theoretical  view  of 
the  matter,  but  is  perfectly  true  in  practice,  is 
evident  from  the  historical  fact  that  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  which  has  always  cherished  the 
greatest  love  for  the  Mother  of  Christ,  has 
also  at  all  times  been  the  staunchest  defender 
of  Christ's  divinity,  and  has  honored  that  di- 
vinity as  no  other  Church  that  claimed  Him 
as  its  founder  has  ever  done.  Cardinal  New- 
man, who  had  himself  been  a  Protestant,  said 
very  pertinently :  ''  If  we  look  through 
Europe,  we  shall  find,  on  the  whole,  that 
just    those    nations    and    countries    have    lost 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 


0/ 


their  faith  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  who 
have  given  up  devotion  to  His  Mother, 
and  that  those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  had 
been  foremost  in  her  honor,  have  retained 
their  orthodoxy."  (Difficuhies  of  AngHcans : 
vol.  II.  p.  92.)  Hence  even  so  rationahstic 
a  writer  as  Mr.  Lecky,  in  his  book  entitled, 
"  Rationalism  in  Europe,"  found  himself 
.forced  by  undeniable  facts  to  make  this  state- 
ment :  "  Seldom  or  never  has  there  been  an 
ideal  which  has  exercised  a  more  salutary  in- 
fluence than  the  mediaeval  conception  of  the 
Virgin."     (p.  234.) 

So  untrue,  therefore,  is  it  that  devotion  to 
Mary  interferes  with  devotion  to  her  son,  that 
it  is  even  a  most  eflicacious  means  of  preserv- 
ing the  faith,  which  is  the  source  of  all  true 
devotion.  Hence  we  can  easily  understand 
why  the  Church  of  Christ  has  in  all  past  ages 
so  earnestly  exhorted  her  children  to  love  and 
venerate  His  Blessed  Mother.  Historically 
considered  devotion  to  Mary  is  as  old  as  the 
Church  of  Christ,  and  necessarily  so ;  for 
Mary's  Son  is  the  founder  of  that  Church,  and 
Mary  was  that  Son's  most  faithful  disciple. 
She  was  the  morning  star  that  announced  the 
day  of  redemption,  and  to  her  was  assigned 


158      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

from  the  very  first  a  central  position  in  the 
Church  wherein  the  fruit  of  redemption  was 
to  be  preserved,  a  position  second  only  to  that 
of  her  Divine  Son.  When  the  Apostles,  ac- 
cording to  their  Master's  behest,  awaited  in 
Jerusalem  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
Mary  was  in  their  midst,  persevering  with 
them  in  prayer ;  around  her  the  members  of 
the  Infant  Church  gathered  for  consolation 
and  strength,  knowing  full  well  that  under 
her  protection  they  would  be  safe  from  all 
dangers  which  might  threaten  their  allegiance 
to  her  Son. 

And  thus,  from  the  first  ages  of  Christianity 
even  until  now,  Mary's  position  in  the  Church 
has  remained  unchanged.  As  circumstances 
of  time  and  place  demanded  it,  new  devotional 
practices  have  been  introduced,  and  new  feasts 
have  been  instituted ;  yet  the  principles  under- 
lying these  various  outward  expressions  of 
devotion  to  Mary  have  ever  remained  the 
same.  There  has  been  a  development  from 
within,  but  no  addition  from  without ;  there 
has  been  growth,  if  you  will,  but  no  loss  of 
identity.  In  fact,  there  is  scarcely  a  single 
devotion  practiced  in  Mary's  honor,  that  has 
not  for  its  object  some  one  of  the  many  splen- 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church       159 

did  prerogatives  enumerated  in  her  beautiful 
litany;  yet  that  Htany  is  the  heirloom  of  the 
first  ages  of  Christianity.  So  also  her  feasts ; 
in  one  form  or  another,  they  nearly  all  took 
their  rise  in  remote  antiquity.  Even  the  feast 
,  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  commemorat- 
ing a  prerogative  the  truth  of  which  was  pro- 
claimed as  an  article  of  the  faith  only  some 
fifty  years  ago,  was  celebrated  in  Eastern 
Churches  as  early  as  the  sixth  century. 
Moreover,  practically  all  her  feasts  had  their 
origin  in  the  spontaneous  devotion  of  the 
faithful ;  the  head  of  the  Church,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  only  sanctioned  or  approved  what 
had  long  been  a  pious  practice.  This  spon- 
taneous spread  of  devotion  to  Mary  is,  in 
fact,  but  a  manifest  fulfillment  of  her  own 
prophesy :  "  From  henceforth  all  generations 
shall  call  me  blessed ;  because  he  that  is 
mighty  hath  done  great  things  to  me." 
(Luke  i,  48-49.) 

In  this  connection  it  may  not  be  amiss  to 
say  just  a  word  in  explanation  of  certain  ex- 
pressions sometimes  made  use  of  in  popular 
prayers  addressed  to  the  Blessed  Virgin. 
Thus  in  many  of  these  prayers  Mary  is  said 
to  be  our  life,  our  hope,  the  mother  of  di- 


i6o      Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

vine  grace,  the  only  hope  of  Christians.  Pro- 
testants not  rarely  affect  to  be  scandalized  at 
such  expressions,  and  infer  from  them  that 
Mary  is  in  some  way  made  to  take  the  place 
of  Christ.  Now,  it  is  very  true,  if  these  and 
many  similar  terms  be  taken  literally,  they 
are,  to  say  the  least,  extravagant ;  n^,  some 
of  them  are  out  and  out  heretical :  but  then  no 
Catholic  ever  takes  them  literally.  Any  child 
that  knows  its  Catechism  is  perfectly  aware, 
for  instance,  that  Mary  is  our  only  hope 
merely  in  the  sense  that,  like  a  loving  mother, 
she  takes  a  special  interest  in  our  salvation, 
and  in  virtue  of  that  interest  she  obtains  for 
us  many  favors  which  we  would  otherwise 
not  have  received.  These  expressions  are, 
one  and  all,  simply  the  language  of  love ;  ex- 
travagant, it  may  be,  in  their  literal  meaning, 
but  very  appropriate  in  the  sense  in  which 
they  are  used.  A  modern  writer  on  the  sub- 
ject puts  this  very  well  when  he  says:  **  The 
expressions  of  an  ardent  lover  to  his  sweet- 
heart may  not  all  be  literally  true,  for  warmth 
of  feeling  often  begets  exaggeration  of  lan- 
guage. But  who  would  cavil  thereat,  and  ask 
the  lover  always  to  speak  in  cold,  matter  of 
fact  terms?     Must  there  be  no  warmth  in  the 


Mary's  Place  in  the  Church       i6i 

expression  of  our  love  of  the  saints  of  God?  " 
Hence  if  but  taken  in  the  sense  in  which  they 
are  used,  these  expressions  contain  nothing 
whereat  anyone  need  be  scandalized. 

Thus,  then,  is  Mary's  place  in  the  Church 
of  Christ,  both  in  fact  and  in  principle,  one  of 
special  prominence.  Such  it  has  always  been, 
and  such  it  always  will  be.  Nearly  two  thou- 
sand years  have  passed  by  since  the  Virgin 
Mother  beheld  in  prophetic  vision  the  love 
and  veneration  of  peoples  yet  unborn,  and  all 
these  ages  are  vocal  with  songs  in  her  praise. 
As  age  after  age  rolled  by,  nation  vied  with 
nation  in  proclaiming  her  prerogatives  and 
extolling  her  virtues.  You  may  go  to  the  ice- 
bound shores  of  the  frozen  North,  or  to  the 
verdant  plains  of  the  glowing  South ;  to  the 
populous  lands  of  the  historic  East,  or  to  the 
rising  nations  of  the  youthful  West;  every- 
where, at  all  times,  in  all  languages,  will  you 
hear  the  salutation :  Ave  Maria !  Hail  Mary  ! 
Who  among  the  children  of  men  has  ever  been 
honored  with  such  undying  fame?  There 
have  been  women  of  renown,  adorned  with 
the  royal  diadem,  who  were  the  idols  of  tneir 
people ;  yet  they  have  sunk  into  the  grave,  and 
their    very    names    have    passed    from    the 


i62       Mary's  Place  in  the  Church 

memory  of  man.  There  have  been  kings  and 
rulers,  wise  in  council  and  mighty  in  deeds  of 
valor ;  yet  their  kingdoms  have  crumbled  into 
dust,  and  the  remembrance  of  their  w^isdom 
and  valor  dv^ells  no  more  upon  earth.  But 
one  there  has  been,  and  one  there  is,  whose 
glory  shall  not  vanish,  and  whose  name 
shall  not  be  forgotten,  as  long  as  there 
is  a  God  in  heaven  and  a  Church  of  Christ 
upon  earth,  and  that  one  is  Mary,  the  Mother 
of  God. 


i 


VI. 

THE    CATHOLIC    CHURCH    AND    EDUCATION. 

In  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  his  gospel,  St. 
ATatthew  tells  us  how  on  a  certain  occasion 
the  mothers  of  Israel  brought  their  little  ones 
to  Our  Lord,  asking  Him  to  "  impose  hands 
upon  them  and  pray."  The  Apostles  took  this 
maternal  solicitude  much  amiss.  Their  Mas- 
ter was  evidently  tired,  for  He  had  spent  the 
day  in  healing  the  sick  and  instructing  the 
multitudes  that  had  followed  Him  beyond  the 
Jordan.  Hence  they  thought  it  would  be 
pleasing  to  Him  if  they  were  to  send  these 
mothers  away,  and  they  did  so  without  con- 
sulting Him  on  the  matter.  But  He  rebuked 
them,  saying :  "  Suffer  the  little  children,  and 
forbid  them  not  to  come  to  me :  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  for  such."  Then  He  re- 
ceived them  kindly,  laid  His  hands  upon  them, 
and  finally  sent  them  away  with  a  great 
blessing. 

163 


164       The  Church  and  Education 

In  these  few  words  the  Evangelist  has 
drawn  a  most  touching  picture,  which  has 
determined  for  all  times  the  attitude  of 
Christ's  Church  in  regard  to  education.  Our 
Lx)rd's  great  love  of  these  little  ones,  His  so- 
licitude for  their  eternal  welfare,  and  the  glad- 
ness of  heart  with  which  He  imparted  to  them 
His  blessing,  stand  out  in  a  manner  so  strik- 
ing that  the  Church,  founded  to  carry  on  His 
divine  mission  upon  earth,  must  needs  con- 
sider the  education  of  the  young  as  one  of  her 
most  essential  duties.  And  this  she  has  al- 
ways done.  Her  history  is  the  history  of 
Christian  education.  God-appointed  teacher 
of  the  nations,  she  has  brought  the  light  of 
knowledge  and  the  warmth  of  virtue  to  count- 
less people  who  sat  in  darkness  and  in  the 
shadow  of  death.  She  has  taken  the  little 
ones  from  their  mothers'  arms,  touched  their 
young  minds  with  the  magic  wand  of  God's 
truth,  opened  their  pure  hearts  to  the  sweet- 
ness of  divine  love,  and  then  sent  thern  forth 
with  God's  own  blessing  upon  them,  that  they 
might  work  out  in  their  lives  the  high  ideal 
set  before  the  world  by  the  God-Man,  the  one 
perfect  pattern  of  Christian  perfection. 

Now  this  statement,  that  the  Church  is  in 


The  Church  and  Education       165 

principle  and  in  fact  the  friend  and  promoter 
of  education,  has  at  various  times  been  vio- 
lently assailed  by  men  not  of  her  faith.  And 
perhaps  never  v^ere  these  attacks  more  fre- 
quent and  persistent  than  in  our  own  day, 
when  education  is  considered  a  panacea  for 
all  the  multitudinous  ills  that  afflict  the  body 
social.  We  Catholics  are  told  that  our 
Church  has  neglected  this  sacred  duty  in  the 
joast,  and  that  she  fulfils  it  only  grudgingly  at 
present.  Nay,  some  go  even  so  far  as  to  say 
that  she  is,  and  always  has  been,  positively 
opposed  to  education,  at  least  to  the  education 
of  the  masses ;  they  say  that  in  her  relations  to 
the  common  people  she  adheres  to  the  prov- 
erb :  "  Ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devotion." 
Hence,  though  she  may  favor  and  promote  the 
education  of  her  ministers,  yet,  if  she  had  her 
own  way,  she  would  do  nothing  to  dispel  the 
darkness  of  ignorance  that  envelops  the 
masses. 

This  certainly  is  a  serious  charge ;  —  a 
charge  that  has  been  refuted  a  hundred  times, 
but,  like  Banquo's  ghost,  it  will  not  down. 
Perhaps  little  good  will  come  of  refuting  it 
once  more,  but  it  is  so  very  serious,  and  urged 
with   such  unabated  persistency,   that   silence 


i66       The  Church  and  Education 

on  our  part  might  be  construed  into  acquies- 
cence. Hence  it  would  seem  proper  to  ex- 
amine the  matter  somewhat  in  detail  as  we 
shall  do  in  the  present  discussion. 

First,  then,  is  it  true  that  the  Catholic 
Church  has,  in  past  ages,  been  remiss  in  the 
fulfilment  of  this  most  sacred  of  duties  ?  That 
question,  I  believe,  can  be  asked  only  by  one 
who  is  wholly  unfamiliar  with  the  history  of 
the  past;  or,  what  is  worse,  has  acquired  his 
information  from  prejudiced  sources.  For 
nothing  stands  out  more  prominently  on  the 
pages  of  history  than  the  untiring  efforts  of 
the  Church  to  diffuse  the  light  of  knowledge 
no  less  than  to  foster  the  spirit  of  piety. 
From  the  very  first  centuries  of  her  existence 
up  to  the  time  of  the  Protestant  Reformation, 
provincial  synods  and  general  councils  urged 
upon  bishops  and  pastors  and  secular  au- 
thorities the  duty  of  providing  educational 
facilities  for  the  young.  (Mansi:  Cone.  Coll. 
13,  998,  n.  XX,  et  passim.)  That  these  de- 
crees were  not  always  carried  into  ef- 
fect, is  true  enough;  but  that  was  not  the 
fault  of  the  Church.  She  was  confronted  by 
difficulties  that  necessarily  rendered  many  of 
her  endeavors  abortive :  yet  the  mere  fact  that 


The  Church  and  Education       167 

in  spite  of  all  obstacles  thrown  in  her  way  she 
constantly  renewed  her  efforts,  shows  how 
much  she  had  the  cause  of  education  at  heart. 
Even  if  she  had  utterly  failed,  her  noble  en- 
deavor alone  would  have  been  sufficient  cause 
for  commendation. 

And  here  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  what 
were  the  circumstances  of  the  times,  and  the 
condition  of  the  people,  when  the  Church  be- 
gan and  carried  on  her  educational  struggle. 
Her  critics  seem  to  imagine  that  all  was  peace 
and  tranquillity ;  that  she  had  but  to  put  up  a 
red  schoolhouse  by  the  wayside,  and  forthwith 
the  children  of  the  forest  would  flock  in  to 
drink  their  fill  at  the  fountains  of  wisdom. 
Yet  what  are  the  facts?  Scarcely  had  the 
Church  been  allowed  to  come  forth  from  the 
Catacombs,  when  from  the  East  and  North- 
east savage  hordes  poured  down  in  vast  mul- 
titudes upon  the  fair  provinces  of  the  vast 
Roman  Empire,  "  trampling  down  with  iron 
hoof  and  armed  heel  the  thousand  year  civili- 
zation of  Rome,  and  the  culture  of  Greece." 
They  were  men  of  the  forest  and  plain,  who 
knew  no  law  but  that  of  their  own  savage 
will,  and  recognized  no  right  save  that  of 
brute  force.     Their  passage  was  like  an  all- 


i68       The  Church  and  Education 

devouring  conflagration,  strewing  their  on- 
ward march  with  ruins  and  the  desolation  of 
death.  Huns  and  Vandals  and  Franks  and 
Goths  joined  hands  in  a  common  cause,  whose 
object  was  plunder  and  pillage  such  as  the 
world  had  not  seen  in  all  the  centuries  that 
were  past.  They  came  to  destroy  and  to  slay, 
to  conquer  and  to  rule.  Old  races,  long 
civilized  and  highly  cultured,  were  swept 
from  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  their  places 
were  taken  by  these  men  from  the  forest  and 
the  jungle,  wild  with  lust  and  thirsty  for 
power.  It  was  a  social  cataclysm  that  en- 
tombed law  and  order  in  universal  chaos ;  the 
sword  supplanted  the  pen,  and  the  light  of 
knowledge  was  quenched  in  a  sea  of  blood. 

Such  were  the  conditions  under  which  the 
Church  began,  and  for  a  long  time  carried  on, 
her  work  of  civilization.  Will  you  blame  her 
if  progress  was  slow  and  halting,  and  if,  in 
the  beginning  at  least,  her  efforts  were  pro- 
ductive of  but  meagre  results?  Suppose  that 
an  avalanche  of  savage  Indians  were  to  swoop 
down  upon  this  fair  land  of  ours,  destroying 
our  cities  and  enslaving  our  people,  how  long 
do  you  think,  would  it  take  our  splendid  Pub- 
lic   School    system   to   lift    these   fierce    tribes 


The  Church  and  Education       169 

from  the  depths  of  barbarism  to  our  present 
height  of  civiHzation?  Would  it  ever  ac- 
complish this  Herculean  task  ?  Well,  we  have 
tried  that  system  on  these  very  tribes,  under 
circumstances  the  most  favorable,  and  what 
is  the  result?  A  vanishing  race,  ignorant  and 
vicious  and  savage,  destined  to  disappear  be- 
fore it  can  even  by  courtesy  be  called  semi- 
civilized. 

Hence  even  if  the  Church  had  failed  in  her 
undertaking,  the  blame  would  not  have  been 
hers.  But  she  did  not  fail.  She  took  these 
rude  children  of  the  forest,  fierce  and  indomit- 
able though  they  were,  and  made  them  kneel 
in  humble  adoration  before  the  altar  of  the 
meek  and  lowly  Christ.  She  sent  forth  her 
sons  and  daughters  and  bade  them  make  dis- 
ciples of  all  nations.  And  they  did.  They 
built  churches  and  founded  monasteries,  and 
wherever  a  churchspire  pointed  heavenward, 
or  peaceful  cloisters  echoed  the  sacred  psalm- 
ody of  consecrated  men  and  women,  there  also 
was  found  a  school  wherein  even  the  poorest 
might  have  an  education  for  the  asking.  We 
are  proud  of  our  National  Free  Schools,  and 
look  upon  them  as  something  exclusively 
American,  yet  anyone  at  all  familiar  with  the 


170       The  Church  and  Education 

history  of  Medieval  Europe  must  be  aware 
that  popular  free  schools  were  founded  and 
maintained  by  the  Catholic  Church  more  than 
a  thousand  years  ago.  Every  parish  priest 
was  required  to  have  a  clerk  whose  duty  it 
was  to  instruct  children  in  secular  branches  of 
knowledge,  whilst  he  himself  had  to  give  them 
their  religious  training.  (Decretal,  c.  3.  X.  3, 
I.)  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  Church  did 
not  make  the  study  of  purely  secular  branches 
of  knowledge  obligatory  on  anyone,  because 
the  circumstances  of  the  times  did  not  favor 
such  an  obligation,  but  she  always  made  pro- 
vision for  these  studies  and  offered  gratuitous 
instructions  to  all  according  to  their  needs. 

The  truth  is  that  all  through  the  so-called 
Dark  Ages,  whenever  an  interval  of  peace 
made  it  possible  for  the  Church  to  exercise 
her  civilizing  influence,  schools  sprang  up  on 
all  sides,  not  only  in  cities  and  towns,  but 
even  in  small  villages,  where  conditions  were 
most  unfavorable.  (E.  Michael:  History  of 
the  German  Empire  During  the  Middle  Ages ; 
p.  388.)  Anyone  who  reads  the  records  of 
those  times,  as  they  are  now  being  published 
by  both  Protestant  and  Catholic  historians, 
will  soon  become  convinced  of  the  fact  that 


The  Church  and  Education        171 

schools  were  maintained  in  nearly  every  com- 
munity, and,  what  is  more,  they  were  most 
liberally  provided  for,  so  that  even  the  poor- 
est might  secure  an  education  in  keeping  with 
their  state  in  life.  Not  only  were  there  Mo- 
nastic and  Parish  Schools,  but  also  what  we 
would  now  call  Public  Schools,  established 
and  cared  for  by  the  community,  and  taught 
by  lay  teachers.  Hence  when  the  fearful  dis- 
turbances that  accompanied  the  introduction 
of  the  new  gospel  had  somewhat  subsided,  the 
reformers  asked  the  secular  authorities,  not 
to  build  nezv  schools,  but  to  rebuild  those  that 
had  been  torn  down  and  demolished  by  such 
religious  fanatics  as  the  Anabaptists,  and  even 
by  Luther's  own  followers.  ( Janssen  :  I.  p. 
23,  et  passim.)  It  is  still  the  fashion  in  cer- 
tain quarters  to  speak  of  pre-Reformation 
times  as  having  been  wholly  deprived  of  edu- 
cational facilities,  but  that  is  simply  the  re- 
sult of  relying  on  the  assertions  of  writers 
who  cannot  even  by  courtesy  be  called  histo- 
rians. The  Protestant  Maitland  puts  this 
very  strikingly  in  the  introduction  to  his  ad- 
mirable book  entitled,  "  The  Dark  Ages."  He 
says :  "  I  have  heard  of  a  traveller  at  an  inn, 
who  wished  to  look  out  and  see  if  it  was  day : 


172       The  Church  and  Education 

and  who  returned  to  bed  with  a  very  wrong 
judgment  on  the  matter,  owing  to  his  being 
in  the  dark  himself,  whereby  he  was  led  to 
open  the  glass  door  of  a  cup-board,  instead  of 
a  window ;  and  I  must  say,  that,  in  trusting  to 
the  representations  of  some  popular  writers, 
you  will  be  doing  much  the  same  thing."  (1. 
c.  p.  4.) 

Nor  was  it  only  in  primary  education  that 
the  Church  interested  herself,  but  she  also 
opened  colleges  and  universities  wherever  a 
sufficient  number  of  pupils  could  be  procured 
to  fill  their  halls.  Erasmus,  a  contemporary 
of  the  Reformation,  and,  in  many  respects, 
the  most  learned  man  of  his  age,  stated  in  a 
letter  to  Vives  that  in  Germany  there  could 
hardly  be  found  a  town  in  which  there  was 
not  an  institution  of  higher  education,  and 
that  nearly  all  of  them  maintained  at  great 
cost  professors  of  languages.  (Opera:  III. 
p.  689.)  And  yet,  in  educational  matters, 
Germany  was  at  the  time  far  behind  France 
and  Italy.  In  fact,  years  before  Luther  was 
born,  there  were  scattered  over  Europe  as 
many  as  seventy  universities  with  their  asso- 
ciate colleges  and  preparatory  schools.  "  These 
universities    had    each    their    own    distinctive 


The  Church  and  Education        173 

character  —  Paris  excelled  in  theology,  Mont- 
pellier  and  Salerno  in  medicine,  Pavia  in  the 
arts,  Bologna,  Bourges,  and  Orleans  in  juris- 
prudence ;  "  whilst  in  the  preparatory  colleges 
special  attention  was  paid  to  the  study  of  the 
ancient  classics,  which  were  so  highly  esteemed 
by  the  older  Humanists.  And  here  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  these  universities  and 
colleges  were  founded  with  the  full  approval, 
and,  in  many  instances,  with  the  active  con- 
currence of  the  Pope,  even  such  as  gave  little 
or  no  attention  to  theology.  Hence  they  rep- 
resent in  concrete  form  the  great  value  which 
the  Church,  even  in  those  much  maligned 
times,  placed  upon  higher  education.  (Mi- 
chael :  I,  p.  432  et  seq.) 

Nor  yet  must  it  be  imagined  that  these  uni- 
versities were  such  only  in  name,  with  a  mere 
handful  of  students,  as  is  frequently  the  case 
in  this  our  well-schooled  America.  When  we 
look  up  the  records  of  the  past,  we  find,  for 
instance,  that  the  university  of  Bologna,  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  had  some  years  an  attend- 
ance of  ten  thousand  scholars :  the  university 
of  Paris,  according  to  Luther's  own  state- 
ment, had  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth 
century  twenty  thousand  students,  and  a  cen- 


174       The  Church  and  Education 

tury  before  it  had  as  many  as  forty  thousand ; 
whilst  Oxford,  in  Henry  III.'s  time,  is  said 
to  have  contained  thirty  thousand.  (Luther: 
Table-talk;  ed.  1568,  fol.  427.  Drane:  Chris- 
tian Schools  and  Scholars;  II.  p.  43.  Jans- 
sen:  I.  p.  81.)  Supposing,  as  is  sometimes 
maintained,  that  these  numbers  as  given  are 
somewhat  too  high,  yet,  after  making  all  nec- 
essary deductions,  they  remain  still  large 
enough  to  make  even  our  greatest  universities 
with  their  four  and  five  thousand  students 
look  decidedly  insignificant.  And  these  in- 
stitutions of  learning  continued  to  flourish 
until  the  so-called  Reformation  emptied  their 
halls  of  scholars,  even  as  it  had  emptied  the 
churches  of  worshipers. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  of  interest  to 
note,  that  of  the  one  hundred  and  forty-eight 
universities  which  are  found  in  Europe  to- 
day, one  hundred  and  eighteen  were  founded 
by  Catholics,  though  many  of  them  are  now 
in  Protestant  hands.  In  fact,  all  the  more  im- 
portant seats  of  learning,  such  as  Oxford, 
Cambridge,  Leipsic,  Heidelberg,  are  simply 
the  heirloom  of  Catholic  times,  and  were  in 
defiance  of  all  law  and  justice  alienated  from 
their  rightful  owners.     (Cf.  Young:  Catholic 


The  Church  and  Education        175 

and  Protestant  Countries  Compared;  p.  331 
et  seq.)  What  strange  stories  history  has  to 
tell :  —  stories  that  make  it  clear  as  daylight 
that  the  Church,  which  is  said  to  act  on  the 
principle  that  *'  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  de- 
votion," evinced  at  all  times  a  practical  inter- 
est in  education  that  stands  unrivaled  even  in 
this  age  of  universal  enlightenment. 

Touching  this  point.  Canon  Farrar,  himself 
a  Protestant,  put  on  record  an  appreciation 
of  the  Church's  v^ork  that  does  credit  both  to 
his  fairmindness  and  to  his  knowledge  of  his- 
tory. In  his  lecture  entitled,  "  Christianity 
and  the  Race,"  he  says :  "  Consider  what  the 
Church  did  for  education.  Her  ten  thousand 
monasteries  kept  alive  and  transmitted  that 
torch  of  learning  which  otherwise  would  have 
been  extinguished  long  before.  A  religious 
education,  incomparably  superior  to  the  mere 
athleticism  of  the  noble's  hall,  was 'extended  to 
the  meanest  serf  who  wished  for  it.  This 
fact  alone,  by  proclaiming  the  dignity  of  the 
individual,  elevated  the  entire  hopes  and  des- 
tinies of  the  race.  The  humanizing  machin- 
ery of  Schools  and  Universities,  the  civilizing 
propaganda  of  missionary  zeal,  were  they  not 
due  to  her?     And  more  than  this,  her  very 


176      The  Church  and  Education 

existence  was  a  living  education ;  it  showed 
that  the  successive  ages  were  not  sporadic 
and  accidental  scenes,  but  were  continuous 
and  inherent  acts  in  the  one  great  drama. 
.  .  .  Life  became  one  broad,  rejoicing 
river,  whose  tributaries,  once  severed,  were 
now  united,  and  whose  majestic  stream,  with- 
out one  break  in  its  continuity,  flowed  on, 
under  the  common  sunlight,  from  its  source 
beneath  the  throne  of  God." 

But,  you  will  say,  if  all  this  be  true,  why 
then  does  the  Church  to-day  take  so  de- 
termined a  stand  against  secular  education  all 
the  world  over?  I  answer  that  the  Church 
does  not  take  a  stand  against  secular  educa- 
tion as  such,  but  against  an  education  that  is 
secular  to  the  exclusion  and  detriment  of  re- 
ligion. In  fact,  the  position  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  regard  to  this  matter  was  made 
perfectly  clear  by  St.  John  Chrysostom,  the 
world-renowned  scholar  and  saintly  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople.  This  is  what  he  had  to 
sav  about  purely  secular  schools  some  fifteen 
hundred  years  ago :  "If  no  one  can  give  you 
a  guarantee  that  your  schoolmasters  are  such 
as  can  answer  for  the  virtue  of  your  children, 
you  ought  not  to  send  them  to  these  schools. 


The  Church  and  Education       177 

*  Are  we,  then,  to  give  up  literature  ?  '  you  will 
exclaim.  I  do  not  say  that,  but  I  do  say  that 
we  must  not  kill  souls.  When  the  founda- 
tion of  a  building  is  sapped,  we  seek  rather  for 
architects  to  reconstruct  the  whole  edifice 
than  for  artists  to  adorn  the  walls.  In  fact, 
the  choice  lies  between  two  alternatives  —  a 
liberal  education,  which  you  may  get  by  send- 
ing your  children  to  the  public  schools,  or  the 
salvation  of  their  souls  which  you  secure  by 
sending  them  to  the  schools  of  the  monks. 
Which  is  to  gain  the  day,  science  or  the  soul  ? 
If  you  can  unite  both  advantages,  do  so  by  all 
means ;  but  if  not,  choose  the  most  precious." 
To  understand  properly  the  attitude  of  the 
CathoHc  Church  in  regard  to  purely  secular 
schools,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  she  views 
education  in  the  Hght  of  eternity.  To  her  the 
present  life  is  but  a  preparation  for  the  life 
beyond  the  grave,  and  hence  she  assumes  it  as 
self-evident  that  education  must  be  such  as 
to  develop  the  religious  element  of  man's  na- 
ture, for  that  alone  can  give  him  a  title  to 
heaven.  She  never  loses  sight  of  the  fact 
that  education  is  in  a  certain  sense  but  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  creative  act  of  God,  and  as 
God   created   human   beings,   not   merely   for 


178       The  Church  and  Education 

the  enjoyment  of  this  world,  but  for  the  end- 
less joys  of  life  eternal,  so  also  must  educa- 
tion be  directed  to  the  attainment  of  that 
same  end.  God  gave  the  child  an  intellect,  a 
will,  a  memory  —  so  many  faculties  that 
stamp  upon  its  very  being  His  own  image. 
These  faculties,  as  given  by  God,  are  in  a 
manner  imperfect ;  they  are  capable  of  de- 
velopment, susceptible  of  greater  perfection, 
and  this  work  of  perfecting  and  developing 
harmoniously  the  God-given  faculties,  always 
with  a  view  of  attaining  more  readily  and 
perfectly  the  great  end  for  which  God  called 
human  beings  into  existence,  she  regards  as 
the  very  csscnse  of  education.  To  her  way  of 
thinking,  therefore,  education  must  first  and 
last  tend  to  perfect  the  divine  image  engraven 
upon  every  soul  by  the  creative  hand  of  God ; 
whatever  falls  short  of  this,  she  rejects  as  in- 
sufficient for  the  needs  of  the  child. 

Viewing  the  matter  in  this  light,  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  taught  by  an  experience  of  nearly 
two  thousand  years,  believes  that  a  purely 
secular  education  if.  wholly  inadequate.  Nay, 
she  is  convinced  that  unless  the  sacramental 
influences  of  religion  be  daily  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  hearts  and  minds  of  the  young. 


The  Church  and  Education        179 

the  religious  and  moral  side  of  their  nature 
remains  undeveloped.  By  this  she  does  not 
mean  that  the  greater  part  of  the  time  should 
be  devoted  to  religious  instruction,  but  rather 
that  the  young  should  be  surrounded  by  a  re- 
ligious atmosphere,  so  that  they  may  realize 
from  the  very  first  that  religion  must  form  an 
integral  part  of  their  lives.  Religious  in- 
struction is  indeed  necessary,  for  a  religion 
that  is  not  known  cannot  be  loved,  and  unless 
it  be  loved  it  exerts  little  influence  for  good ; 
but  with  all  this,  religious  instruction  is  but  of 
secondary  importance:  what  is  most  needed 
is  religious  training;  the  constant  application 
of  religious  principles  to  the  views  and  pur- 
suits of  life.  As  the  perfecting  of  the  intel- 
lect depends  upon  systematic  exercises  along 
intellectual  lines,  so  also  does  the  perfecting  of 
the  will  depend  upon  similar  exercises  along 
religious  lines.  In  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other,  proper  training  is  an  indispensable  pre- 
requisite to  success. 

Hence  even  if  it  were  true,  as  is  so  often 
asserted,  that  our  Public  School  education  is 
not  anti-religious,  the  Catholic  Church  would 
have  sufficient  reason  to  withdraw  her  chil- 
dren from  its  influence.     The  mere  fact  that 


i8o       The  Church  and  Education 

it  is  professedly  unreligious  must  condemn 
it  as  wholly  unsuited  to  the  proper  trainini^ 
of  the  young.  But  besides,  is  it  true  that 
our  Public  School  education  is  not  anti-re- 
ligious? I  think  not.  I  have  the  greatest 
respect  for  Public  School  teachers.  I  be- 
lieve that,  as  a  l)ody,  the\-  are  well-meaning 
men  and  women,  who  subject  themselves  to 
the  drudgery  of  the  class-room,  not  merel\' 
for  the  money  that  is  in  it,  but  for  the  noble 
purpose  of  benefiting  their  fellow-men.  P)Ut 
is  it  not  a  fact  that,  from  a  religious  point  of 
view,  they  are  of  all  shades  of  belief  and  un- 
belief? There  are  Catholics  among  them,  and 
believing  Protestants ;  but  there  are  also  found 
in  their  ranks  the  most  pronounced  infidels, 
who  believe  neither  in  God  nor  in  an  hereafter. 
Perhaps  you  will  say,  that  as  religion  is 
eliminated  from  the  school,  the  religious  views 
of  the  teacher  can  have  no  bearing  upon  the 
pupils.  This  is  not  so.  If  nothing  were 
taugh:  in  these  schools  except  reading  and 
writing  and  arithmetic,  it  might  be  possible 
to  avoid  all  contact  with  religion ;  but  they 
teach  and  must  teach  such  branches  as  his- 
tory, literature,  and  the  natural  sciences,  and 
in  these  the  religious  bias  of  the  teacher  will 


The  Church  and  Education        i8i 

manifest  itself  in  spite  of  his  best  intention. 
As  M.  Gabriel  Mauriere  puts  it :  "The 
teacher  who  takes  his  or  her  profession  seri- 
ously can  never  be  content  with  the  mechanical 
teaching  of  the  '  three  R's,'  but  will  some- 
how blend  with  them  the  fourth,  '  religion/ 
and  while  no  text-books  of  dogma  are  in  his 
or  her  hands,  will  so  teach  and  live  the  ideal 
life  that  she  or  he  will  be  a  '  living  epistle 
known  and  read  of  all.'  " 

Now  this  being  the  case,  is  there  no  anti- 
religious  influence  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
Catholic  pupils?  In  the  preceding  discussions 
we  have  seen  what  false  views  the  majority  of 
Protestants  take  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in 
regard  to  such  questions  as  intolerance,  the 
reading  of  the  Bible,  and  devotional  practices ; 
yet  these  views  are  frequently  met  with  in  the 
text-books  which  Public  School  teachers  are 
supposed  to  follow.  Do  you  think  that  the 
average  Protestant  or  infidel  teacher  will  cor- 
rect such  false  statements,  especially  when 
they  are  in  harmony  with  their  own  personal 
views?  Moreover,  it  is  all  too  often  the  case 
that  teachers  will  go  out  of  their  way  to  cast 
a  slur  upon  the  Church,  or  upon  religion  gen- 
erally.    Several    instances   of   this    sort    have 


i82       The  Church  and  Education 

come  to  my  personal  notice.  It  is  only  a  few 
weeks  ago,  when  a  Public  School  teacher  of 
this  city  referred  to  the  Bible  as  a  book  which 
some  call  holy,  but  which  he  himself  consid- 
ered to  be  filled  with  nonsense.  Do  you 
think  that  statements  like  this  make  no  impres- 
sion on  young  minds  and  hearts?  If  the 
Bible  is  filled  with  nonsense,  then  Christianity 
itself  is  nonsense ;  for  it  is  built  upon  truths 
contained  in  the  Bil)le.  Hence,  though  it  be 
theoretically  true  that  our  Public  School 
education  is  not  anti-religious,  it  is  absolutely 
false  when  viewed  in  the  concrete ;  yet  it  is 
in  its  concrete  aspect  that  it  exerts  its  influ- 
ence upon  our  children.  In  view  of  this,  the 
Catholic  Church  is  perfectly  justified  in  fol- 
lowing the  advice  of  St.  John  Chrysostom, 
quoted  above:  "If  no  one  can  give  you  a 
guarantee  that  your  schoolmasters  are  such 
as  can  answer  for  the  virtue  of  your  chil- 
dren, you  ought  not  to  send  them  to  these 
schools." 

To  this  conclusion  some  may  take  excep- 
tion on  the  score  that  if  separate  schools  are 
maintained,  the  Church  puts  an  extra  burden 
upon  her  members.  For  in  that  case  Cath- 
olics must  not  only  help  to  support  the  Pub- 


The  Church  and  Education       183 

lie  Schools  of  which  they  make  no  use,  but 
they  are  also  called  upon  to  support  their  own, 
and  that  without  any  assistance  from  the 
State.  This  is  true ;  but  whose  fault  is  it  ? 
By  what  right  does  the  State  demand  that  we 
support  schools  to  which  conscience  forbids 
us  to  send  our  children?  Does  not  our  Con- 
stitution grant  freedom  of  conscience  to  all? 
And  where  is  freedom  of  conscience  more 
directly  exercised  than  in  the  matter  of  edu- 
cation? Hence  it  is  not  the  Church  that  puts 
this  extra  burden  upon  Catholics,  but  the 
State;  and  it  does  so  without  any  right  and 
title.  If,  therefore,  you  must  blame  some  one, 
put  the  blame  where  it  belongs. 

Again,  some  will  say  that  by  refusing  to 
send  our  children  to  the  Public  Schools,  we 
deprive  them  of  educational  advantages  for 
which  we  do  not  compensate  them  in  our  own 
schools.  This  is  false.  Catholic  school  edu- 
cation, even  in  secular  branches,  is  fully 
equal  to  that  of  our  State  institutions. 
Wherever  our  pupils,  whether  from  Paro- 
chial Schools,  or  Academies,  or  Colleges,  have 
had  an  opportunity  to  compete  with  those  of 
corresponding  institutions  of  the  State,  they 
have  invariably  shown  to  advantage.     Listen, 


184      The  Church  and  Education 

for  instance,  to  what  ]\Ir.  James  Clancy,  a 
New  York  public  school  inspector  of  twenty 
years'  experience,  has  to  say  anent  this  mat- 
ter. His  statement,  published  in  the  New 
York  Sun,  is  as  follows :  "  For  more  than 
twenty  years  I  have  been  familiar  with  the 
public  schools.  As  a  school  inspector,  I  have 
paid  particular  attention  to  methods  and  re- 
sults. But  until  recently  I  had  never  set  foot 
in  a  Catholic  parochial  school.  When  I  did 
enter,  it  was  with  a  feeling  that  it  would  be 
impossible  to  find  anything  to  commend,  edu- 
cationally, from  a  layman's  point  of  view. 
.  .  .  Nothing  is  further  from  the  truth 
than  the  assertion  that  the  parochial  schools 
teach  only  religion.  ...  Do  these  paro- 
chial schools  turn  out  better  educated  children 
than  those  from  the  public  schools?  Last 
summer,  while  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the 
graduates  of  the  parochial  schools  who  pre- 
sented themselves  for  examination  for  en- 
trance into  the  Normal  College  were  admitted 
(and  many  with  honor),  only  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  graduates  of  the  public  schools 
were  successful.  This  summer  the  Catholic 
percentage  was  higher."  Similar  reports 
come  from  Chicago,  Pittsburg,  and  other  cities 


The  Church  and  Education       185 

where   the   matter   has   been   pubhcly   investi- 
gated. 

And  as  in  primary,  so  also  in  secondary  and 
higher  education,  do  CathoHcs  more  than  hold 
their  own.  A  recent  writer  on  the  subject 
puts  this  very  pointedly  when  he  says :  **  We 
have  no  means  at  our  disposal  to  institute  a 
comparison  all  along  the  line ;  but  Catholics 
are  the  same  the  world  over,  and  the  recent 
Examination  Results  in  Ireland,  for  example, 
show  the  exclusively  Catholic  University 
College  of  Dublin  far  and  away  beyond  all  the 
others.  Similar  success  it  noted  in  England, 
and  the  troubles  in  France  emphasize  the 
same  truth.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  a 
doubt  that  the  popularity  of  the  Catholic 
schools  determined  their  suppression  and  im- 
pelled the  infidel  government  to  seize  the  es- 
tablishment and  turn  the  teachers  as  beggars 
into  the  street."  (Pardow:  The  Only  True 
American  School  System;  p.  11.)  Touching 
this  writer's  reference  to  France,  it  may  be 
of  interest  to  know,  that  in  Paris,  during  a 
period  of  thirty-one  years,  each  year  twenty 
leading  scholars  were  selected,  by  State  ex- 
amination, from  the  Catholic  and  State  schools 
of  the  same  grade.     Of  these  six  hundred  and 


1 86      The  Church  and  Education 

twenty  so  selected  by  State  officials,  five  hun- 
dred and  twenty-seven  were  pupils  of  Catholic 
schools,  so  that  in  thirty-one  years  Catholic 
pupils  carried  oft"  the  victory  thirty-one  times 
without  a  break.  (Cf.  Young:  o.  c.  p.  255.) 
No  wonder  that  the  State  found  it  necessary 
to  expel  the  Catholic  teachers. 

Hence  look  at  the  matter  from  what  view- 
point you  choose,  you  are  forced  to  admit,  by 
the  logic  of  facts,  that  in  regard  to  education 
the  position  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  unas- 
sailable. Persons  unfamiliar  with  the  history 
of  the  'past,  or  maliciously  misinterpreting 
present  conditions,  may  accuse  her  of  acting 
on  the  principle  that  "  ignorance  is  the  mother 
of  devotion  "  ;  >  et  the  fact  remains  that  "  she 
supplies  the  fire  from  which  others  light  their 
torches." 


v 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


B    000  010  673    2 


